Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez

Gato_Solo said:
So. Since you tend to notice the ranting, fundamentalist type of Christian more than the quiet, unassuming Christian, who lives in the world, and not of the world, then all are painted by the same brush? Sounds like bullshit to me...or an attitude that is extremely prejudicial...;)
Click to expand...
Well, that's not what I said but it's fairly well extablished that I am quite prejudiced against religious fundamentalists of any stripe (and pretty much anti-religion in general). I notice the ranting fundamentalists muslims and jews more too (are there ranting fundamentalist buddhists?). I just know more christians than anything else. :shrug: If you want it to be bullshit, that's okay with me. I no longer apologize for it, I'm certain I'm right.

I call them zealots or officiated fanatic (for those with titles)
Click to expand...
But they aren't all zealots and fanatics. They are however, all clerics. The zealots and fanatics get the highest ratings in the media though...
 
chcr said:
But they aren't all zealots and fanatics. They are however, all clerics. The zealots and fanatics get the highest ratings in the media though...
Click to expand...

Most all clerics are zealous and fanatical about their beliefs. (though their beliefs may differ. Some may believe in respect and some may not.) Or they wouldn't be a clerics, it comes with the job.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I refuse to get into this with you. Take the Bible out of context if you choose. Anyone who does so is, to be perfectly candid about it, beneath my reply. If you want to quote scripture, read it all first. If this reply does not sit well with you, consider us even. Good day.
Click to expand...


:lol2:

It's ok SouthernN'Proud i'm just playing with you. I've been dealing with people miss using bible quotes all my life, sucks huh? I was just trying to bait you but your no fun.

I'm sorry if I offended you (ok I'm really not but your a big boy suck it up) :winkkiss:
 
ekahs retsam said:
Most all clerics are zealous and fanatical about their beliefs. (though their beliefs may differ. Some may believe in respect and some may not.) Or they wouldn't be a clerics, it comes with the job.
Click to expand...

A cleric is simply a member of the clergy, nothing more. In my experience, fanatacism and zeal are not required. In fact, belief is not even required although I suspect it's useful.
 
and what separates Clergy from Laity?

The answer is ordination and who seeks to be ordained? They must strongly believe (one might even say zealously or fanatically) and express their religious views as it agrees to a sect or group of religous people or they are heretical in nature and purpose. For example a priest can not directly denouce and conflict with the church body.

Someone can be religious they can even spiritual but once ordained they become a mouth piece for a cause.
 
Pat Roberts believes he is a Christian there is no question about it. He believes in God and so forth and so on. Though smart Christians would be quick to point out that he doesn't stand for most other Christians. Someone can still profess to be a "Christian" and still be an ass! One can even believe they are a Christian and be so off target that they don't even recognize their own errors and hate. I won't pretend to judge him but we can all judge his actions which I believe speak for themselves in most cases.
 
ekahs retsam said:
and what separates Clergy from Laity?

The answer is ordination and who seeks to be ordained? They must strongly believe (one might even say zealously or fanatically) and express their religious views as it agrees to a sect or group of religous people or they are heretical in nature and purpose. For example a priest can not directly denouce and conflict with the church body.

Someone can be religious they can even spiritual but once ordained they become a mouth piece for a cause.
Click to expand...
One might not as well... ;)
 
chcr said:
Sorry rr, but I find that typically christian.
Click to expand...



I have to disagree. there are many like that but most of the ones I have known were quite open minded and well educated
 
freako104 said:
I have to disagree. there are many like that but most of the ones I have known were quite open minded and well educated
Click to expand...

Y'see, freako, when I'm honest with myself (as Gato expects me to be all the time ;) ) I don't really consider those open minded christians to be typical christians even though they are. Like everyone else, I suppose, I remember the relatively few assholes I have to deal with much better than the myriad "normal" folks. Then, I jerk my knee and say shit like that. I apologize to the "typical" christians I may have offended by that remark. The "fundamentalist zealot" ones can blow me, though.
 
Back to topic if you will permit me.

I did a bit of reading about Chavez...just to see where Robertson might be coming from, and he is so far in left field that I don't quite get where his religion has anything to do with his argument.

Chavez is a democratically elected president (more so than Bush, because the USA is a federation and not a democracy). Venzuela enjoys freedom of the press, religion, assembly etc... much like all free nations.
Chavez himself is left-leaning. His major faux-pas is his moral support of Cuba's dictator (not becasue Castro's a dictator, but because of Castro's efforts, failed or not, at establishing a more social culture).

Chavez has also managed to piss off the upper-crust rich folk who live in Venezuela because he's trying to nationalize oil production. That is, the profits from the sale of crude and gas goes towards infrastructure and the poor, education and medecine...instead of into the pockets of the wealthy. :shrug: *and idea which Canada has recently floated in the media*

Since the rich own the newspapers, TV etc... they are constantly attacking him in the press. They are also 'asking for help' to 'overthrow a communist-leaning' president out of office, from...guess who? The USA. Thus allowing them to take back oil production for themselves.

Chavez is also trying to unite the southern nations of South America in order to give them more financial strength in order to resist Washington's dominating influence regarding exports (particularly of oil). In addition, he's trying to gain a greater independance from his neighbours.

I'm wondering if all this will tick off Washington enough that we'll see another incident like in Haiti. Aristide forced to resign and leave his country by armed thugs, at gunpoint , to American troops who 'just happened to be on hand to accept his resignation and give him a plane ticket out' instead of being there to help defend yet another annoying but democratically elected President.

Time shall tell, but Robertson's comments are pretty indicative, no?
 
chcr said:
WHAT?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...
Oh sorry!...er...umh... Religious belief is on a spectrum with Agnostics and athiests on one side and zealots and Dubya on the other..

better?? :)
 
MrBishop said:
Oh sorry!...er...umh... Religious belief is on a spectrum with Agnostics and athiests on one side and zealots and Dubya on the other..

better?? :)
Click to expand...
:lol: Thank you.
 
MrBishop said:
Chavez is also trying to unite the southern nations of South America in order to give them more financial strength in order to resist Washington's dominating influence regarding exports (particularly of oil).
Click to expand...

1. When the US becomaes an oil exporting country, you might have something. Until then...:rofl4:

2. Most South American countries are far from dominated by the US, and the citizens of those countries would resent that remark to the point of you suffering a bit of pain. Trust me. I've been to Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Panama, and Uruguay. The US 'dominance' has more to do with our spending money than any political imaginings you may have.

3. Couldn't pass this one up...the US is a republic. Not a federation.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top