Thursday, January 14, 2010

pat robertson on haiti

Among all of the anger at Pat Robertson, I don't get it. I think he lacks good timing, etc. but I don't see the things folks accuse him of. They say he is angry, sounds compassionate to me. They say he serves an angry god, sounds like the God of the Bible to me. They say he is speaking for God, sounds like he is merely making a suggestion not speaking in absolutes.

In the end, I wish he would not have said this now but I don't get the anger toward him except for what it speaks about some of those that are angry themselves. I like Lance Ford's take on it ...

It’s not the time for analyzing and “supposing” as to the reason of such a tragedy…just jump in and rescue. If you come upon a car accident and victims laid in the middle of the road the first thing to do is not to say, “If you hadn’t been drinking your spleen wouldn’t be laying on your kneecap.”

Technorati Tags:

1 comment:

Bob said...

I don't know about anger, but I think the comment is pretty stupid. Very much in the nature of Job's pals: "you must have done something terribly wrong long ago, or this awful thing wouldn't have happened to you." Robertson is every bit as misled and misleading as they were. Not only that, but his analysis is essentially historically wrong. His whole points stands or falls on historical accuracy. Did Haiti as a nation make a deal with the devil? And if so, is this earthquake, a couple of centuries later, God's reply? It's all so damn graceless and superstitious. I mean, there is so much more that can be said, theologically speaking, about natural disasters than to simply choose some past sin and say this disaster is a direct response to that sin. I'm sorry, but it's childish nonsense. Robertson should be ashamed of himself.

reftagger