Tuesday, August 23, 2005

WWJA: Who would Jesus assassinate?

Robertson calls for assassination of Chavez.

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”


Peg said...

Hmmm, I wonder, seeing Pat in action many times and knowing how his humor is, --he said this in the light not shone in black and white print! I have found alot of what Pat Robertson says has become very "suspicious" in his overall agenda!
You know Doc, I have become more and more disgruntled with so called Christians and their stand! I shake my head many times wondering where in the world they have steered (themselves).
Prostitution, pediphilia (sp), embezzling, rape, callous remarks and racial slurs, and the list goes on and on.
I have a hard time remebering that although they are Christians (at least some really are) they are not infallible humans!

I just keep looking to the sky and wait!!

Doctor Logic said...

Hi Peg,

Alas, I don't think much help will be coming from the sky. We mere humanoids must help ourselves. We've waited long enough.

Peg said...

WEll Doc, True we "humanoids" must help ourselves but I still believe the guidance must come from above! After all, look at the mess we are in now and how many of us really look to God for guidance and answers?
Doc, I will never stray from my beliefs as a child of God!
I just have learned not to put my trust in any "humanoid"!

Doctor Logic said...

Unfortunately, the reason we're in the mess is because people think they know what God wants.

I agree with you that one should not blindly trust fallible humans. But that's precisely why you shouldn't put your stock in man's most untrustworthy invention: religion.

The Bible has had hundreds of authors who have transcribed stories passed by word of mouth over the centuries. It has since been edited for content by church authorities. We always approach ancient texts with total skepticism, unless they happen to be our own religious texts, in which case, they are accepted without doubt. This strikes me as inconsistent at the very least.

It's like the man who is generally untrusting of teenagers, but who makes a special exception for his own teenage son. When the man's teenage son deceives or misbehaves, the man concocts an elaborate excuse to preserve the illusion of infallibility of the son.

I say the clerics had their shot. Their magic books have failed to deliver, and don't make any sense. They don't get any more mulligans, excuses, freebies, or cop-outs.

Peg said...

Hmm, kinda makes me wonder how you can argue the legitimacy of such advice as, Love your neighbor as yourself or wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction.
True many men have had their hands on the scriptures and have twisted and turned every word as the way Congress will a piece of legislation they want to have ignored.
But nevertheless it is there and it says what it says!
The Bible is the oldest book in the world and the older the copy you see you will find that only a few changes have ocurred unless of course you examine one that has been created by man himself for whatever reason he chooses.
The Bible contains science, history, geneaology, wars, famines, catastrophes natural and supernatural, philosophy, kingdoms great and doomed, and a statement on how to live an ethical life.
It is hard to believe that so many look at its contents and dismiss the "idea" of God.

Doctor Logic said...

Here's why people dismiss the Bible. It's riddled with errors and inconsistencies.

The early church decided what beliefs would be reflected in the Bible and which one's wouldn't. (See the Nicene Creed)

Also, the Bible is not the oldest book in the world. For example, the Hindu Vedas is estimated to be 500 years older than the Torah.

The Bible doesn't seem very compelling to me.

Peg said...

Without venturing to those sites-- the early church, which I define as after Pentecost, did not decide what material would be implemented in that, if that were the case they would have deliberately left out many different tribes knowing the disention between those groups. But instead they directed their words to those various groups as in that Christ came to save and not condemn!
And I stand corrected on seeing that the first 5 books of the Torah may indeed be the oldest. I thank you for this knowledge!!

Peg said...

OOps! Lef this out! They have based the age of the Vedas on astronomical conjunction and they are not absolutely sure that this is correct and they are still disputing the exact age.