Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Robertson Adds Ninth to the Sixth
Christians tend to make a big deal about the Ten Commandments, right? I mean, before The Passion of the Christ, there was Chuck Heston and the whole C.B. DeMille thing, right?
These are the rules that Christians are supposed to follow, right? And at least according to his resume, Pat Robertson supposedly has some sort of loose affiliation with Christianity, right?
So, the Sixth Commandment essentially says "Don't kill people." What, then are Christians supposed to do when they hear Pat Robertson saying that the U.S. Government should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?
Clearly, one could consider that a no-no under the whole Sixth Commandment thing, right?
Now what, you may ask, does the Ninth Commandment have to do about this? Well, funny you should ask. You see, the Ninth Commandment is that whole "Hey... Don't Lie" commandment, which tends to be another big one for most Christians.
Not for Pat "My real name is Marion and I've got a hotline to Heaven" Robertson. Today he tells people that he was "misinterpreted" and never used the word "assassination."
We should all really pray together tonight that Pat's show is taken away from him, or he away from it, because it's pretty sad that he can't remember what he said on a television show that reaches millions of people around the world.
Just to clarify, here's what you said, Pat:
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we are trying to assassinate him, we should go ahead and do it..."
Not only did you USE the word, Pat, but you used it in two different forms. Of course, to be fair, I suppose we should point out that you never said "The United States should assassinate Hugo Chavez."
But then today you lied, because you said:
"I didn't say 'assassination,'" Robertson clarified during a broadcast of his "The 700 Club" Wednesday morning.
You better be careful, Pat - this isn't the first time you've sinned, and if you keep it up, I'm sure God has his own personal version of Hell reserved just for you.
Posted by FleshPresser at 4:36 PM /
posted at 9:45 PM
You've got Christianity almost entirely wrong, actually. Prior to Christ, the world was under "the law", otherwise known as the ten commandments. Those not adhering to these commandments fell short of the glory of God, and thus were condemned (they were clearly posted, so I don't know what their problem was). The commandments were around before Christ, so those following the law could not rightfully be called Christians.
Then came Christ, who died for the sins of all those who couldn't follow these rules (which was basically everyone, thanks to human nature). Being the only sinless human, ever, his death paid for the sins of all who would accept what he said and did as true. Christians are not required, per se, to follow the commandments, only to have faith in Christ. This is the age of grace - Christians are "under grace" not "under the law".
Now, even if the commandments were still valid, they do not say, "thou shalt not kill", they say, "thou shalt not murder". There is a big difference - for example, if I came into my house and found a man trying to harm my family, I would be perfectly justified, even under the law, to put a bullet through his head. Also, it's not "don't lie", it's "don't bear false witness" - this back in a day where, when two individuals agreed that they saw someone commit a crime, then that person was convicted.
My point is to say this - if one doesn't understand Christianity, it is quite wrong of that person to attempt to push an agenda using a twisted and incorrect version of it. Attempting to condemn him using his own faith against him, particularly if it's a faith you don't have a clue about, is quite foolish. Besides, only God has the authority of the condemning variety. If you're so concerned about Pat Robertson's lies, perhaps you ought to try to keep your own to a minimum.
All of this aside, Pat Roberston was not doing a very good job of following Christ when he said what he did (semantics aside - his intent was not likely all that good). Lucky for him, he has been saved by Christ's love because of his faith. I'm sorry to hear that your demonstrated lack of understanding provides unequivocal proof you don't have the same luxury.
FleshPresser posted at 10:38 PM
George, you can misrepresent me all you want over on that *other* blog, but don't come into MY house... anonymously... and say I don't know anything about Christianity based on a critique of (wiping tears from my eyes) Pat Robertson, who even you admit was WRONG!
You want to have a discussion about Christianity? This Left Wing Righteous Man is ready to have the discussion. But don't try sneaking in here, saying it's OK to murder and lie as long as you have faith, criticize MY faith, and then walk away anonymously.
That really doesn't seem like your style - I had a bit more respect for you than that.
posted at 11:51 PM
Respect? Wow, you could have fooled me. Still, and I'm being honest when I say this - I thought that I had to have a "Blogger" login to leave my name, so I chose "Anonymous". Now that I've looked and know what "Other" means, you may consider me "Other". For the record, I did not "walk away" - I'm back here again to see what you have to say. Unfortunately, it's quite disappointing.
About Christianity, you were, without a doubt, dead wrong. You want chapter and verse? Let me know and I'll be more than happy to provide it. It's not your critique of Pat Robertson that made it clear, it was your blatant lack of knowledge about the difference between the ages of law and grace, which is fundamental to the Christian faith. If anyone is "misrepresenting", it is NOT me. If so, please feel free to enlighten me. Your uninformed characterization of the commandments was, on the other hand, an immense misrepresetation. At least you got it half right this time (further illustrating my point) - it's "murder", but it's not "lie" - it's "bear false witness". Saying "kill" and "lie" is clearly twisting God's words for your own agenda.
ONCE AGAIN - you heard what you wanted to hear. I DID NOT state that it was "OK to murder and lie". I also did not state at any point that I had reason to defend his statement, only that you had no right to use his faith as a weapon against him when you clearly do not understand it. If you did, you would not condemn him in the first place.
Your response was quite dramatic, though with the whole "MY house" bit - I'll grant you that. Remember, though - it's fact and not drama that make a statement true. Now, let's hear what you mean when you say I misrepresented you.
posted at 12:00 AM
Oh yes, and one more bit - keep using my own words against me when I agree with you (about Pat Robertson being wrong for saying what he did for example) and I'll be less likely to agree with you, making common ground difficult to find. Make no mistake - I genuinely desire that.
P.S. Please don't forget to read my previous post as well this time.
FleshPresser posted at 9:53 AM
I'm glad that you came back, even if I wasn't able to find much to agree with in any of your comments. Let's see if I can clarify anything that I said for you.
First of all, if you read deeply into my blog, you'll begin to see a writing style and a certain tone. Regular readers have come to expect that - as you're new, we'll cut you some slack and let it go... this time. ;)
But please also know that just becasuse my tone may be a little loose does NOT mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.
You misrepresented my faith, first and foremost, in your post... assuming at best that I knew nothing of Christianity, and at worst, that I was not a Christian. On both counts, you'd be wrong.
Are you familiar with the King James Bible? (careful now... I'm using *that* tone again.... it's a little sarcastic, but I think you'll grow to like it after a while)... why don't you go pick it up, turn to Exodus 20:13, and read aloud to the class, please? Um... could you speak up, George... we can't hear you. Oh... what's that? Did you read the word "kill?" Thank you... you may be seated.
Now, class... I'm sure it was Paul that established that Jesus did not throw out the law, but instead fulfilled the law, yes?
And wouldn't it seem strange to find Christians today fighting so hard for the rights to display those Ten Commandments if they, in fact, meant nothing?
George, let me end by reminding you of this: we are most like animals when we kill; we are most like humans when we judge; and we are most like God when we forgive.
Once again, I do appreciate you coming to visit PTF... I'm sure you're not actually a "closeted liberal" or anything, so I know you find it difficult to read much of what is here - so thanks.
FleshPresser posted at 10:02 AM
PS... just so we're clear... I AM aware that the Ninth Commandment doesn't read "Hey... Don't Lie" as I stated in my original post. Again, there was a tone there I was going for that was sadly lost on you. I did not, however, want you to think I had corrected you on the sixth and ignored the ninth. Just so we're clear. As my friend Apu says, "Thank you... come again."
posted at 5:12 PM
Let me begin by saying that I can certainly understand and appreciate most brands of humor. I am not some stuffy Bible-thumping conservative, by any means. That being said, I still don't think it right to twist God's word to meet any type of end, be it humor or political discussion. Maybe that's just me.
This from Biblestudy.org, as my Bible is at home and I could not do the research myself without it:
The commandment "thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder," most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way. According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10). Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13)
This explanation is exactly as I have understood the 6th commandment for many years. The Hebrew words for "murder" and "kill" are similar and something was lost in the KJ version's translation. Hence, I do not feel "picked on" when you suggested that I have a seat, so no offense taken.
Jesus did fulfill the law by enabling all sinners to be holy in the eyes of the Lord, as before He came and took on the world's sin, no one was able to make that claim. You're right - he did not throw out the law, but this was not my point. We still need the law to illustrate to us what sin is, but our salvation and justification are not through the law or our deeds - only through our faith in Christ. Christians today, if they understand this fundamental fact, fight to keep the commandments on display for exactly this purpose (that is, to remind all humans that they are incapable of meeting this standard, but that Christ took care of it).
So, I stand by my statements.
As to the 9th commandment, I'm happy to hear that you understand the difference, and really - I do get your brand of humor, I just wanted to make sure you understand that the impression you give to someone who does not know their way around a Bible is that you were quoting the word of God to chastise Pat Robertson, which in my eyes isn't right when the quote is inexact. To me, it's perfectly okay to be tongue-in-cheek about most anything, but the inspired word of God is off limits for this type of application.
For the record - I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to murder or lie based upon being forgiven. I also AGREE with you (feel free to quote that, I'm happy to agree on this) that PR was wrong for saying what he did if your quote is correct (I haven't seen any footage of the comments, but I trust you on this). Whether he was wrong or not, I didn't agree with your misuse of the commandments to condemn him.
All in all, I'm glad to be having this exchange with you. I am perfectly happy agreeing to disagree on matters of opinion. While I'm here - I haven't looked around your blog a great deal but I noticed that you gave me grief for signing on as anonymous when you go by "Fleshpresser" and not, say, "Joe". I'm sure you can see the irony in this.
« Home
posted at 9:45 PM
FleshPresser posted at 10:38 PM
