Home » blogs » Prometheus 6's blog

Yes or no answer, please

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on August 23, 2005 - 12:52pm.
on Culture wars | Onward the Theocracy!

Is this 

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

..."We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

 Christian?

latest article | previous | next

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by kspence on August 23, 2005 - 1:24pm.

yes (possibly), no, no, yes.

yes (possibly) if "christian" is defined by non-christians experiencing christian actions.

no if "christian" is defined by a majority of self-identified christians (it'll still be "no" if we confine it to the states).

no if "christian" is defined by that book them folks be reading.
 

yes if "christian" is defined by readers of the left behind series. 

link
Submitted by Prometheus 6 on August 23, 2005 - 1:49pm.

I really hope people start to realize that man is practicing a different religion than most think he is.

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 23, 2005 - 1:56pm.

Christian?

Absolutely!

The Ayatollah Robertson is operating out of the tradition of Inquisitionists, Crusaders, and those who burned tens of thousands of women for being witches. Killing infidels and the enemies of Christendom is a well established tenet of fundamentalist belief. That whole "Rapture" thing celebrates the annihilation of billions of non-believers with the advent of the second coming.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 23, 2005 - 2:56pm.

no...,

it's decidedly anti-Christian

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 24, 2005 - 8:56am.

Last time I checked Robertson was a major leader of Christians with a daily viewership in the hundred of thousands. Because his pronouncements offend some "Christians" does not make him any less a devotee of his self-proclaimed faith. Since its founding by the followers of a Jewish prophet, Christianity has been comprised of various sects not all of which have been in agreement as to the tenets of the faith.

Robertson clearly belongs to the frothing-at-the-mouth-rabid-dog-take-no-prisoners sect. That's his brand of Christianity. His particular mind-set is not new in Christianity, nor is it especially radical. The proof of this is the lack of outrage expressed by the vast majority of so-called evangelicals. On the news last night only one evangelical spoke out to condemn his remarks. The other major leaders of this movement, Falwell, Dobson, Kennedy, etc., remained conspicuously silent. Their followers number in the millions.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 24, 2005 - 9:12am.

Because his pronouncements offend some "Christians" does make him any less a devotee of his self-proclaimed faith. Since its founding by the followers of a Jewish prophet, Christianity has been comprised of various sects not all of which have been in agreement as to the tenets of the faith.

Robertson has never been Christian. He is an American businessman in the mold of P.T. Barnum who has masterfully exploited American suggestibility and the neurobiological sickness of faith.

Fr. Romanides provides an authoritative and uncompromising overview of the history of anti-Christian apostasy. As far as understanding, in a summary fashion what a genuine Christian is, Dr. Thomas Mether provided a succinct and peerless scholarly treatment of this subject.

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 24, 2005 - 10:42am.

The Pope is a "businessman." So are Reverend Macdaddy and Reverend Chickin Wing, and they all strongly profess their Christianity.

One man's "genuine Christian" is another man's apostate, and all the efforts to define an "orthodoxy" won't change that reality about Christianity (or any other belief system). Such a system is defined and circumscribed by what believers believe. No two will necessarily think, act or believe everything alike.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 24, 2005 - 11:15am.

Such a system is defined and circumscribed by what believers believe. No two will necessarily think, act or believe everything alike.

Now there's a fallacy born of miseducation...,

As a system, Christianity is exclusively defined and circumscribed by what its constituents DO. It exists only insofar as its praxis is competent, coherent and intact. Everything else is at best ignorant and erroneous conversation, at worst, as Fr. Romanides quite thoroughly delineates, a form of mental illness.

A simple analogy should serve to illustrate. You might claim to be a physicist. However, a demonstrated inability to solve simple mechanical equations would quickly put the lie to your claim no matter how vehemently you profess your belief that you are in fact a physicist. So also for Christianity.

Christianity is a discrete and well-defined method of interpersonal psychological development. Demonstrated inability of Christian claimants to perform as genuine Christian practitioners invalidates the formers claims.

This is the root of schismatic error going back to the earliest recorded incarnations of the church.

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 24, 2005 - 11:23am.

For the sake of civility I will agree to disagree. I understand how sensitive folks are about their belief systems and what constitutes membership or orthodoxy so I will avoid engaging you on this subject in the future.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 24, 2005 - 11:48am.

I'm not sensitive about this or any other subject Ourstorian. As a matter of fact, I'm about the least sensitive or constrained correspondant you're ever likely to come upon. It just so happens that this is a subject with which I am unusually conversant.

Calling attention to a logical or factual blind spot in your conceptual representation of Christianity - and possibly religion in general - that would be unconscionable if you were holding forth about science, sports, or any other performance-based human endeavor, is hardly a sensitive defense of belief.

Please, by all means feel free to continue. I'm perfectly at ease holding up my end of this discussion to any depth you're prepared to endeavor.

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 24, 2005 - 12:24pm.

"Calling attention to a logical or factual blind spot in your conceptual representation of Christianity - and possibly religion in general - that would be unconscionable if you were holding forth about science, sports, or any other performance-based human endeavor, is hardly a sensitive defense of belief."

Given the sense of infallibility and certitude that permeates the above comment, I can only conclude that I must be completely ignorant of Christianity and religion in general, and to elect to continue this discussion with one so "unusally conversant" with the subject would only reveal the even greater depths of factual blindness and illogic from which I suffer. Consequently, I must bow to your authority, and, as previously stated, humbly refrain from engaging you on this topic in the future.

I should also add that for the most part I have found your writing to be energetic, imaginative and inventive, so I'd rather you not waste your talent or time debating with me an issue upon which we will be unable to find common ground or consensus. I will continue to enjoy reading your posts on other subjects, and, from time to time, will discuss with you such other topics of mutual interest that may arise. 

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 24, 2005 - 2:30pm.

Given the sense of infallibility and certitude that permeates the above comment

such sensitive imagination Ourstorian...,

I can only conclude that I must be completely ignorant of Christianity and religion in general

Failure to consider praxis in your description of Christianity in particular and religion in general doesn't necessitate this conclusion, however, you're more qualified than I to attest to the factual basis of your opinions.

and to elect to continue this discussion with one so "unusally conversant" with the subject would only reveal the even greater depths of factual blindness and illogic from which I suffer.

said disclosure being qualitatively far less tolerable than the factual and logical concessions you routinely demand - for example - from DW, correct?

Personal knowledge and individual opinion is acquired from books, other people, institutions which create a cultural consensus - a 'consensus trance' - that masquerades as reality, a convincing counterfeit of the real thing. We're stuck in an illusory world of our own making, trapped by our own cleverness, and it isn't real.

"Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment." Rumi

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 24, 2005 - 2:44pm.

"Failure to consider praxis in your description of Christianity in particular and religion in general doesn't necessitate this conclusion, however, you're more qualified than I to attest to the factual basis of your opinions."

Ouch. Excuse me while I run and find something to staunch the blood.

link
Submitted by dwshelf on August 24, 2005 - 7:29pm.

Christian?

Republican? 

link
Submitted by Prometheus 6 on August 24, 2005 - 8:53pm.
Republican?

 

Obviously yes. 

link
Submitted by dwshelf on August 24, 2005 - 9:21pm.

Does how we identify him as a Republican apply to how we might identify him as a Christian?

There's a bit of overlap. In both cases, members are allowed to self-identify, which creates a set of members who frequently disclaim the other as being "real".

However, I agree that Roberson's claim as a "Republican" is valid, mostly because he seems to have the favorable attention of powerful Republicans.  We can hope that the recent nonsense might cause that to change, but up until now it's real.

As a Christian however he's more isolated.  Not alone, but on an island. Certainly the vast majority of self-identified Christians would reject both this specific statemenet as well as Robertson in general.  I don't observe Robertson receiving favorable attention from powerful Christians.   So while we can't really answer whether Robertson is a Christian or whether his assassination plan was Christian, we can observe that his Christian credentials are somewhat more suspect than his Republican credentials.

A bit of an aside, Pat Robertson is to Republicans as Cindy Sheehan is to Democrats: a member with tremendous effect at repelling new recruits. 

link
Submitted by Prometheus 6 on August 24, 2005 - 10:05pm.

I don't observe Robertson receiving favorable attention from powerful Christians.

He is a poweful Christian.

So while we can't really answer whether Robertson is a Christian

Why not? He fits the common definition...you can identify the "powerful Christians" you say don't favor him with attention, why can't you sat if he fits the description?

link
Submitted by dwshelf on August 24, 2005 - 10:16pm.

He is a powerful Christian.

Because he has a television show?  Is Dr. Gene Scott a powerful Christian?

To be a powerful Christian, as with a powerful Republican, one must demonstrate something resembling leadership over something resembling half of Christians. The Pope qualifies.  Billy Graham once did, but Franklin falls well short.  Jerry Falwell, who is more powerful than Robertson simply because he's smarter and smoother, also falls well short.  Powerful Christians are hard to find, and neither Robertson nor Scott are among them.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 24, 2005 - 10:25pm.

Given Israel's profligate use of assassination, one might be inclined to think him Jewish..,

But Robertson is actually an overt Dominionist exemplar of the neocon British Israelite cabal called the CNP

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 24, 2005 - 10:42pm.

To be a powerful Christian, as with a powerful Republican, one must demonstrate something resembling leadership over something resembling half of Christians.

The trivializing fact of self-identification alone should distinguish the anti-Christians from the Church of Rome. Members of the Catholic church are not self-identified. They are catechized into an hierarchical polity - which since the protestant reformation - has dwindled into a shadow of its former political gravity.

Robertson is an immensely powerful Dominionist. He has a viewership and faithfully funding following (the club) of over a million in the U.S. alone. While by no means as powerful as an elite Mormon elder, given the multifaceted consolidation of temporal power wielded by the LDS - think Catholic church of 600 years ago - Robertson is vastly more powerful than Scott, Falwell, or even Graham at his peak.

link
Submitted by Prometheus 6 on August 24, 2005 - 11:31pm.

To be a powerful Christian, as with a powerful Republican, one must demonstrate something resembling leadership over something resembling half of Christians.

So...there are only two, maybe three powerful Republicans. 

Your definition is absurd.

And we still don't know why you can't say if  Robertson is a Christian when you identify others so easily.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 25, 2005 - 7:00am.

Complete lack of temporal perspective...,

Anyone looking more expansively across the yurica data will note that the dominionists are somewhat of a breed apart. I'll never forget participating in meetings back in my hometown when wealthy proto-dominionists in imitation of one of their icons, Francis Schaeffer, would wear kneepants, stockings, and buckle shoes like fin d'siecle founding fathers. These muhfukkas want to bring back the good old days and they're not harkening to the 1950's, think 1850's or better still, 1750's and you'll find yourself walking in the neighborhood of Dominionist temporal perspective.

On the Dominionist James Bond villain tip, doesn't anybody remember the African gangsterism Robertson got caught perpetrating only a few years ago? Does Freedom
Gold Ltd ring any bells?

In 1999, Pat Robertson incorporated a Cayman Islands-based firm known as Freedom Gold, Inc., and signed an agreement with the Taylor regime to mine an area in southeastern Liberia. Numerous accounts have documented the fact that Taylor enjoys a 10 percent interest in the country. But the curious ties linking al Qaeda, Taylor and Robertson -- an association based, it appears, on pure greed -- soon generated controversy. The Washington Post carried two stories critical of the cozy Robertson-Taylor business agreement, to which a Freedom Gold official replied: "Freedom Gold Limited was formed in response to Liberia's need to spur economic activity after their long and devastating civil war. Dr. Robertson remains a friend of Liberia and is working to alleviate the suffering of the Liberian people. Dr. Robertson's first and foremost goal is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations."

Before he was spreading the gospel in Liberia, though, Robertson launched a business deal involving mining concessions in a remote area of the country known as Bukon Jedeh. Since 1978, a former California legislator , Ken Ross Jr. had been trying to develop a gold mining operation there along with a former campaign worker for California Gov. Jerry Brown, William Burke. Ten years later, a local gold rush of sorts began , but the stampede for riches was interrupted by the 1990 civil war.

Once Taylor had secured power, Ross was approached by the new Liberian leader saying that he wanted to talk to Pat Robertson. He likely knew about Robertson's earlier forays in the Congo when the televangelist started his African Development Corporation, and become the foremost supporter of Zairian strong man Mobutu Sese Seko. Like Taylor, Mobutu had a miserable record of human rights abuses, and even missionary groups in Zaire were dismayed by the close association between Robertson and the dictator. In 1989, for instance, Mobutu"s government cracked down on "unrecognized" religious groups. Evelyn Millman of the American Baptists Churches complained than Robertson's first visit to Zaire was "an endorsement and another instance of the U.S. supporting a terrible dictator."

Robertson and his wife were flown to Zaire on Mobutu's official jet, entertained on his personal yacht, and spent time at Mobutu's lavish presidential retreat. Out of this soiree, Robertson gained extensive land and mining concessions for his African Development Corporation. One observer who participated in meetings at CBN's studio headquarters described reports of a potential $1 billion cash payout.

link
Submitted by dwshelf on August 25, 2005 - 1:19pm.

And we still don't know why you can't say if  Robertson is a Christian when you identify others so easily.

I'll happily agree that anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, and anyone who denies being a Christian is not a Christian.  Those who do neither we're unsure of.

Unfortunately, it doesn't leave us with any real way to propose generalizations regarding Christians. We can't really have expectations of Christians, nor can we be disappointed by Christians.

link
Submitted by Prometheus 6 on August 25, 2005 - 2:29pm.

So there are no Christians, and there never has been.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 25, 2005 - 3:14pm.

they are in truth multitudinous anti-Christian denominations and churches who have been struggling for preeminence in the USofA for several centuries.

Bingo!!!

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 26, 2005 - 8:30am.

Defining through negation? This one's not and that one's not, so who or what is a Christian?

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 26, 2005 - 3:07pm.

who or what is a Christian?

I'll raise my hand back here toward the back of the room, but due to the civility constraints previously requested, will only hazard an answer to this question if specifically called upon to do so.

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 26, 2005 - 4:09pm.

Okay. Please answer cnulan. But don't interpret my silence as ignoring your response. I'm away until Monday, and won't tune back in to the discussion until then.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 26, 2005 - 4:47pm.

no need to respond O, this is after all merely thought for food..,

taken as a system of belief, all are created equal. however, taken as what it actually is, you might find other other criteria applicable to your assessment of the phenomenon. it is a very specific culture of competency. please note that even within the orthodox sphere, all synods are not considered equal. the greatest achievements of spiritual athleticism have occurred within the coptic, armenian, and syriac synodial traditions.

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 29, 2005 - 4:07pm.

cnulan, I read the "What is Christianity" section of chapter one of the treatise to which you directed me. While it clarifies much of what you have previously stated in brief about this topic (I believe I have found several ideas expressed in the text that are inferentially implicit in your recent posts), in my opinion it in no way can be construed as providing the only generally accepted statement of Christian praxis or belief. A "specific culture of competency" may be its goal or even the attainment of its adherents, but that fact in and of itself does not preclude the existence of other "Christian" practices, or Christian practicioners who are just as profoundly convinced their brand of orthodoxy also actuates and instantiates the "healing in Christ" that Christians seek (granted these other "Christians"--especially many who live in the West--may not use the same terminology or even understand the ascetic nature of the methodology articulated in this particular treatise).

Given the complex evolution of Christianity, the existence of competing sects during its founding, and the emergence of countless sects since the Protestant Reformation, the existence of a genuinely "catholic" or universal church must be seriously questioned. To do so does not deny the accomplishments of those whose praxis instantiates the spirit of Chrisitanity. But it does allow a contextual reading of others who self-identify as Christian and profess to act in accordance with Christian principles. 

From your standpoint (as I interpret it based on the reading you suggested), those "Christians" who are not healed are ignorant of true Christianity. Many of those self-identified Christians are undergoing "treatment" by seeking the appropriate spiritual therapy, others are lost in the morass of doctrine, and still others are simply misdirected according to the vagaries of "wrong faith." The Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, etc., according to this reading, are so wrong they have ceased to be or never have been Christian. It is within this context that I understand your previous comments. Perhaps you can understand how a non-Christian would not be so parsimonious in dealing with these distinctions.

I intend to read more. But this also is offered merely as food for thought.

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 29, 2005 - 5:51pm.

Were you previously aware of this Christian systematization?

Do you perceive ecumenism or evangelism in this systematization?

Setting aside the fuzzy soteriological terminology for a moment, how would a non-Christian objectively compare and contrast a discipline which aims at moving the locus of awareness out of the cerebral speech centers and into what would ordinarily be considered proprioceptive neural subsystems with systems of others who self-identify as Christian and profess to act in accordance with Christian principles?

Take your time O. After you browse this literature a bit futher, let me know if you continue to consider this even an apples and oranges comparison, or, whether you're faced with something completely different -and essentially unrelated - to the class of human endeavor you've previously known as Christian?

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 30, 2005 - 12:31pm.

Were you previously aware of this Christian systematization?

Yes. I have not encountered the "Orthodox Psychotherapy" text before, but I am not unfamiliar with its concepts or the ascetic tradition in Christianity.

Do you perceive ecumenism or evangelism in this systematization?

No. Not in this particular permutation.

Stay tuned for additional comments.

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 30, 2005 - 3:27pm.

Setting aside the fuzzy soteriological terminology for a moment, how would a non-Christian objectively compare and contrast a discipline which aims at moving the locus of awareness out of the cerebral speech centers and into what would ordinarily be considered proprioceptive neural subsystems with systems of others who self-identify as Christian and profess to act in accordance with Christian principles?

I can’t pretend to be objective. I have learned to be wary of the term and what it implies because, in my opinion, it mostly is used as rhetorical cover for hidden agendas or prejudices. Instead, I would rather make my biases as transparent as possible. I informed you that I am not a Christian. I also will disclose that I am not an adherent to any monotheist praxis or belief system. But from my point of view neither fact precludes me from conducting an honest analysis and synthesis of the issues at hand.

In the paragraph cited above you question how a non-Christian can compare and contrast the orthodox praxis you cite with the systems of others who self-identify as Christian. I would argue that my perspective as an outsider has some distinct advantages. For example, I have identified methods, concepts and precepts of spiritual technology in the reading you presented that are also integral components of non-Christian spiritual traditions. These methods are part of a vast esoteric system that precedes but also encompasses Christianity. In fact, the reading you supplied helps to reframe this discussion of “orthodox Christian praxis” versus “other” Christian practices and beliefs using the esoteric/exoteric dichotomy.

With the eso/exo dichotomy as a conceptual frame, I can understand your argument that initiation or the lack of initiation into orthodox praxis determines who or who is not a “genuine” Christian (to borrow a term you used elsewhere). In other words, I see your position as one informed by what I would call the inner (esoteric) teachings of your spiritual tradition.

On the other hand, those who have been criticized in this thread for their pronouncements of hatred from their cable television pulpits are “outside” of the “true” faith due to their lack of apperception of the inner tradition (awareness of the proprioceptive neural subsystems) and consequent inability to enter into a state of noesis or illumination.

This I believe is your position, reframed of course in my words with an analogy (eso-exo) that you may or may not accept. You referred to the former as Christians and to the latter as non-Christians. I still maintain that both sets are Christians, with the latter possessing a false, rudimentary or non-illumined acquaintance with the essential (esoteric) premises and purpose of the faith. Although it is not my place to say so, I also think this latter set of “lost” souls should be treated with more equanimity and grace; it would seem the “Christian” thing to do, as it is from this group that “true” Christians must be made, since none is born enlightened (or “saved,” as Christian eschatology would have it).  

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 30, 2005 - 5:30pm.

You referred to the former as Christians and to the latter as non-Christians. I still maintain that both sets are Christians, with the latter possessing a false, rudimentary or non-illumined acquaintance with the essential (esoteric) premises and purpose of the faith.

No O.

I referred to the latter as anti-Christians.

Exo/meso/eso terminology describes the church and its adherents very adequately. As also these terms describe the human body and the body human which we term the anthropocosmos or the Christ.

In the paragraph cited above you question how a non-Christian can compare and contrast the orthodox praxis you cite with the systems of others who self-identify as Christian. I would argue that my perspective as an outsider has some distinct advantages.

I didn't question your objectivity, your honesty, or your prejudices, rather, I asked what is your assessment? You aptly distinguished the apple from the orange.

Although it is not my place to say so, I also think this latter set of “lost” souls should be treated with more equanimity and grace; it would seem the “Christian” thing to do, as it is from this group that “true” Christians must be made, since none is born enlightened (or “saved,” as Christian eschatology would have it).

Interesting given your non-Christian belief what you imagine a "true" Christian response to an anti-Christian influence should be. Personally, I cotton to the shaolin ass-whooping Jesus but that's just me and I'm funny like that...,

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 31, 2005 - 8:55am.

Personally, I cotton to the shaolin ass-whooping Jesus but that's just me and I'm funny like that

I like the Jesus-as-warrior-monk image too.

Interesting given your non-Christian belief what you imagine a "true" Christian response to an anti-Christian influence should be.

My only point here was to underscore the process whereby folks move from the outer to the inner teachings. The outer teachings attract adherents for a variety of reasons. But, in theory, those who have "eyes to see and ears to hear" can gradually advance beyond the mundane and superficial to the sublime. I may not be a Christian, but that doesn't mean I can't identify with key precepts associated with the faith. The Golden Rule is a salient example. So, I simply wanted to express the idea that those with rudimentary or even false perceptions of the faith have the potential to advance if they can connect with those who are fully grounded in the inner teachings. 

link
Submitted by cnulan on August 31, 2005 - 9:42am.

if they can connect

This is an if I've pondered at very great length and I'm not sure that the theory below accurately describes the reality of the situation; bearing in mind the frequency with which eyes to see, ears to hear admonishments are attributed directly to the teacher himself.
But, in theory, those who have "eyes to see and ears to hear" can gradually advance beyond the mundane and superficial to the sublime.
I look at it like this, the open source software world is about as broadly accessible with barriers to entry reduced to as low a level as possible - yet how many people actually avail themselves of the riches there for the taking? The eso really boils down to taking an active interest in the operations of your organism and all that it entails. Closer to you than your own breath, yet, notice the rarity of folk experiencing an interest, much less taking up the vocation - the parable of the sower sums it up rather succinctly

link
Submitted by Ourstorian on August 31, 2005 - 3:59pm.

Closer to you than your own breath, yet, notice the rarity of folk experiencing an interest, much less taking up the vocation - the parable of the sower sums it up rather succinctly

I agree.

It's also true that some people can "religiously" study the parable for a lifetime and never penetrate its essence, while others will correctly perceive its "jewels of thought" in the blink of an eye.

This brings me to another point about eso/exo. I honestly don't believe the eso is in any way separated or divided from the exo. To my way of thinking (or not thinking) they exist as part of the same continuum of consciousness (an indivisible whole, much like the "human body" analogy you drew). Consciousness, then, is not divided. But human perception can suffer from attention deficit disorder or succumb to the tendency to mistake the illusory and transitory for that which transcends all forms. The eso/exo dichotomy serves as a useful frame of reference or discursive tool, but that is all. Accordingly, illumination can come in an instance like a streak of lightning. Who can pinpoint the tipping point in a person's consciousness? So, the fact that some may not try to "connect" does not negate the fact that a "connection" already exists.

At least that's my fuzzy way of looking (or not looking) at it.

link