What are we to make of the Haiti earthquake?

[steve7150]

Pat's words had a negative effect on the kingdom because they are condemning words blaming the tragedy on many innocent victims after the fact.

I confess, I still have not been able to find this element in Pat Robertson's statements, and have a hard time seeing how one could take this meaning from them. Which of his actual comments carries this note of condemnation or blaming of innocent victims?




Pat said "the Haitians" made a deal with the devil to defeat the French without distinguishing which Haitians therefore it implies all Haitians made a pact so now they are just getting what they deserve.
He did'nt mean it that way but the media of course plays it that way.

[steve]

In view of the fact that he identified the time of the pact as the time when the Haitians obtained independence (the 1790s), which he said was the time "of Napoleon III" (an apparent anachronism, since he was born in 1808), even the dullest media folks should realize that none of those who are now suffering were around to make such a pact over 200 years ago, nor to incur responsibility for any repercussions.

It honestly sounds to me that, out of malice toward Pat Robertson (for good reasons or bad), people are refusing to think about what he said objectively and to see if there is really anything remotely offensive in it. If my family were among those dead in Haiti at this time, I would find nothing more offensive in the suggestion that the land was cursed by actions of ancestors than I find in the similar belief about Adam and Eve's actions bringing a curse on the world, or the actions of the Jews who crucified Jesus as bringing the present problems of the Jews upon them (the Bible supports both of the latter statements).

[Michelle]

Unfortunately once again when there is a highly visable tragedy Hollywood portrays itself as caring and one Christian on secular TV manages to portray Christians as condemning and judgmental.

With all due respect, Steve7150, (and I do respect you very much) so what? Hollywood is putting on a show of charity and good works, and they'll get their reward now. What a pity that they're not storing up riches where neither moth nor rust destroy.

When secular TV manages to portray Christians as condemning and judgmental, are we really surprised that the world hates us? We were promised that they would.

We're supposed to be known as Jesus' disciples by our demonstration of love for each other. For the record, I don't know many thinking adults who really believe that Pat Robertson speaks for the majority of Christians, but Pat Robertson is our brother, even if he chooses his words foolishly and even when they lead people to make erroneous assumptions about all of Christianity. How far off, really, is the impression that Christians are condemning and judgmental when we come dangerously close to saying to one member of the body, "Pat, we have no need of you."

[steve7150]

In view of the fact that he identified the time of the pact as the time when the Haitians obtained independence (the 1790s), which he said was the time "of Napoleon III" (an apparent anachronism, since he was born in 1808), even the dullest media folks should realize that none of those who are now suffering were around to make such a pact over 200 years ago, nor to incur responsibility for any repercussions.

It honestly sounds to me that, out of malice toward Pat Robertson (for good reasons or bad), people are refusing to think about what he said objectively




You're technically correct but in this media circus when liberals get a chance to bash a Christian they accuse first and think a year later. So for example the Haitian ambassador was on TV acting all offended about this. Maybe it really boils down to the fact that those who look for opportunities like this will manipulate it to their advantage and the real issue to me is whether Pat was as wise as a serpent considering that this event just happened.

[steve7150]

We're supposed to be known as Jesus' disciples by our demonstration of love for each other. For the record, I don't know many thinking adults who really believe that Pat Robertson speaks for the majority of Christians, but Pat Robertson is our brother, even if he chooses his words foolishly and even when they lead people to make erroneous assumptions about all of Christianity. How far off, really, is the impression that Christians are condemning and judgmental when we come dangerously close to saying to one member of the body, "Pat, we have no need of you."




Hi Michelle,

Don't get me wrong i like Pat, i used to watch the 700Club almost every day and he has a great charity "Operation Blessing" which is still in New Orleans long after Hollywood left. It's just about the one issue, was he as wise as a serpent? He has a very big platform with a very big audience on a secular station every night so all i mean is that he has to think about his words carefully in certain situations.

[christopher]

Hi Michelle,

you wrote:

How far off, really, is the impression that Christians are condemning and judgmental when we come dangerously close to saying to one member of the body, "Pat, we have no need of you."

Did someone actually say that here or are you referring to something else you read/heard? Just curious. I truly hope that's not how my criticism of Pat's statement is coming across. If so, I apologize, it certainly is not intended to communicate that we have no need of him.

However, we are indeed called to judge the actions of those who are inside the church (1Cor 5, Gal 2). If Pat has lost his good testimony among outsiders because of his history of insensitive or judgmental comments, I think he should be made aware of that and do something to resolve it, up to and including stepping out of the public eye if necessary. But that doesn't mean the body of Christ has no need of him. He's a sage. He certainly has something to contribute. But perhaps it's in a different capacity than being the mouthpiece of his organization. That's for him and his organization to decide.

Paul seemed to think it was important for the church to maintain (as much as possible) a good reputation among outsiders (1Cor14, 1Cor9). He even made it a qualification for church leadership (1Tim3). If that component is no longer there, than it would seem to me that a leader is no longer qualified to lead the church.

The more I examine the statements of Jesus about the world "hating" us, the more I think He has religious leaders in mind rather than the "world" as we think of it. After all, that is who the apostles received the persecution that Jesus was referring to from isn't it?

[selah]

However, we are indeed called to judge the actions of those who are inside the church (1Cor 5, Gal 2). If Pat has lost his good testimony among outsiders because of his history of insensitive or judgmental comments, I think he should be made aware of that and do something to resolve it, up to and including stepping out of the public eye if necessary. But that doesn't mean the body of Christ has no need of him. He's a sage. He certainly has something to contribute. But perhaps it's in a different capacity than being the mouthpiece of his organization. That's for him and his organization to decide.

I agree. Personally, I am disappointed that he did not step down after his remarks about Sharon having his stroke (a couple of years ago). I remember that his attitude left me wanting to apologize to non-Christians. The attitude of Christ-followers in public leadership roles is of paramount importance to me. At the same time, I want to bless him and show mercy to him, just as I would hope he would do (and say) for others.

[steve7150]

I would find nothing more offensive in the suggestion that the land was cursed by actions of ancestors than I find in the similar belief about Adam and Eve's actions bringing a curse on the world, or the actions of the Jews who crucified Jesus as bringing the present problems of the Jews upon them (the Bible supports both of the latter statements).





Just to touch on another subject within this topic, which is does the devil have the power to cause an earthquake? After the New Covenant it seems to me the only real power the devil has is to possess material bodies of living things and influence the carrier to do evil things. The demons even caused the pigs in the demoniac story to kill themselves but i don't see any examples after Jesus where Satan had the power on his own to cause mass destruction.
The only possible hint i can think of was when Jesus was on the sea of Galilee and perhaps the devil may have caused the dangerous wind but i don't think there was anything specifically connecting the devil with this. Am i missing something?

[steve]

Possibly. Jesus "rebuked" the wind. Apart from the rebuking of the fever in Peter's mother-in-law (which may have had a diabolical cause), we don't find Jesus "rebuking" non-personal entities (though He "cursed" the fig tree—Mark 11:21). It is possible that the storm was stirred-up by the devil (like the storm that killed Job's children) with the aim of preventing the encounter Jesus was about to have with the Gadarene demoniac on the other side of the lake. Who can say?

In asking whether the devil has power over such things as earthquakes, we are asking a question which the Bible does not answer, either in the affirmative or the negative. That he has some powers over natural things would seem to be suggested by the wind and storm mentioned above. How far this power extends is not known.

[steve7150]

In asking whether the devil has power over such things as earthquakes, we are asking a question which the Bible does not answer,




Does'nt it say in the Psalms that only God has power over nature?