Robertson suggests God smote Sharon

I'll trib to that !
</font>[/QUOTE]You sure are tribbin man.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Well, Mr. Robertson is entitled to his opinions, but it is certainly tacky and inappropriate to speak these opinions at this time to a world-wide audience while Mr. Sharon is in such a critical state.

I have to agree with the White House, that his statements "aren't helpful."

 

You are quick to call people heretics. Just how is Robertson a heretic? </font>[/QUOTE]He is part of the Word of Faith movement. This doctrine is heresy. He is, therefore, a heretic.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]I will have to agree with you on that. The Word Faith movement and particularly the leaders is heretical. Unfortunately many people involved in the movement don't understand what its leaders are teaching.

 

So nothing a WOF person says can be true? Pat Robertson says that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins...but he's a heretic, therefore, this cannot be a true statement

While I do not agree with everything PR says, to just dismiss everything he says is foolish. The man can have an opinion, as we all do. He just might be right about Sharon...we do not know. He is not advocating all illnesses are a result of all sin as has been suggested these first 4 pages. His timing could have been better, but the constant bashing of a fellow brother is very un-Christ like!

 

You're really hoping he is right. Let's see here:

1. The WoF crowd is chomping on the bit for him to die to prove it was the wrath of God against him for the Gaza Pullout.

2. The Dispy crowd (which, in many cases, make up the same crowd as #1) are chomping at the bit to call him the anti-Christ if he survives his "mortal head wound" and brings peace to the region.

Does that about cover it?

Either way, they are looking for a reason to hate Sharon and kick him while he is down.

Joseph Botwinick

 

A belated AMEN to Ken's first post here!

 

Previously Sharon was on the hardline all the time. It is the opinion of the Messianic Jews that he was completely Brain-washed when he visited Vatican in 2002. Then many people wondered about the change of his policy. Some Jews doubt about his genealogy as a Jew.

 

There are some things that just don't need to be said out in public. I heard the statement on TV last night and I don't think it was said in an ugly way, but it didn't need to be said -- regardless of beliefs, it was incredibly poor taste.

 

I agree. Also, such common sense should apply even to this case. But sometimes, there should be someone who can speak up. Otherwise, many people who do not know the details, may not know the providence of God and the truth. Nothing in the world happens without acknowledgement by God.

In Israel, one interesting question was about whether the prayer is effective or necessary, if one disagrees with him and has no mind or willingness to support him but participate in the prayer. Rabbi answered in such case, the prayer would be meaningless and therefore one doesn't need to participate in the prayer.

 

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22404

Robertson’s comments on Sharon shock SBC’s Land
By Dwayne Hastings
Jan 6, 2006

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Comments by Pat Robertson regarding the medical condition of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon were arrogant and insensitive, a Southern Baptist leader said Jan.6.

“I am both stunned and appalled that Pat Robertson would claim to know the mind of God concerning whether particular tragic events, such as former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in 1995 or Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke, were the judgments of God,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Pat Robertson should know better,” Land added.

In remarks aired on his Jan. 5 television program, “The 700 Club,” Robertson seemed to suggest that Sharon’s stoke was the result of the prime minister’s decision to have Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip last year. In the same program, Robertson referred to the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who, like Sharon, had agreed that giving land to the Palestinians should be a part of the peace process.

“It was a terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless he was dead,” Robertson said of Rabin.

“God considers this land to be His. You read the Bible and He says, ‘This is my land,’ and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, ‘No, this is mine,’” Robertson is quoted as saying in press reports.

Sharon suffered a massive stroke Jan. 4 and remains in serious condition in a Jerusalem hospital. The Israeli leader suffered a mild stoke Dec. 18 and, prior to the second stroke, was to undergo surgery to repair a hole in his heart.

“A far greater expert on God’s will than Pat Robertson will ever be, the Apostle Paul, declared, ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?,’” Land said, quoting Romans 11:33-34.

Land said whether or not a particular event is God’s judgment is something that Paul said is “past finding out” because no one has “known the mind of the Lord.”

“Even if one agreed with Pat Robertson’s position that the Israelis do not have the right to grant part of the Holy Land to the Palestinians, it would be well beyond Rev. Robertson’s competence to discern that these tragic events were in any way, shape or form the result of God’s judgment on any individuals,” continued Land, who hosts a weekly syndicated call-in radio program, “Richard Land Live!”

“I am almost as shocked by Pat Robertson’s arrogance as I am by his insensitivity,” Land added, noting he had conducted a small informal poll among students and faculty on the issue at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., while on campus to teach a class.

“I did not find one person who agreed with Pat Robertson and who was not both embarrassed and incensed by his comments,” Land said.

During the telecast, Robertson said, “Sharon was personally a very likeable person and I am sad to see him in this condition,” noting he had prayed with the prime minister in the past. Robertson also said in Scripture the prophet Joel “makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who ‘divide my land.’”

“But here he’s at the point of death. [Sharon] was dividing God’s land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America. God says, ‘This land belongs to Me. You’d better leave it alone,’” Robertson said.

Land was not alone in criticizing Robertson.

A White House spokesman said, “Those comments are wholly inappropriate and offensive and really don't have a place in this or any other debate.”

According to the Associated Press, the Anti-Defamation League and others took aim at Robertson for his comments.

A press release issued by Robertson’s office noted Robertson had met with Sharon at “significant times and considers him a friend.” It said Robertson was a “lifelong supporter of Israel and has continually expressed grave concern over dividing the land of Israel.”

According to a spokesperson for Robertson, the evangelist was “simply reminding his viewers what the Bible has to say about efforts made to divide the land of Israel.”

Speaking for Robertson, Angell Watts, criticized those who “lift his comments out of context and widely circulate them in an attempt to discredit him.”

 

The name Jew originally referred to those from the tribe of Judah. Perhaps Sharon is from one of the 11 'lost' tribes!

 

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I hope he is right, nor do I believe in WOF.

To claim something so outlandish...I'm sure you have a first hand source of someone saying such an ungodly, awful thing...or maybe it is just you saying it.

You are absolutely clueless....

 

I think we have generally learned to ignore anything that comes out of Robertson's mouth.

 

Nobody made Israel give up any land. The majority of Israelis supported, and indeed, encouraged, the Gaza pullout.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Good point. I guess we can now expect a majority of the Israeli's to suddenly have massive strokes.

 

from the above post:
If America turns their back on Israel....then it's all over.

America will turn against Israel, (we have before) and in the not to distant future, and guess what. God is still Israel's protector and won't have missed this nations help.

 

Robertson is a moron. I think he is enthralled with his own opinions and, perhaps, the sound of his voice. He has, or thinks he has, so many who just wait for his next words that he just doesn't think about what he says.

 

Even though most here dismiss Robertson, or at least think his timing was off, still, many seem to agree with his premise regarding the physical nation of Israel. But there are several problems with this.

For instance, The Chick tract "Love the Jews" (formerly "Jeopardy") suggests that all the famine in Africa is the result of the leaders of those nations "breaking off diplomatic ties with Israel", and therefore coming under the divine "curse" of Genesis 12:3! This is amazing, as that verse doesn't even deal with the question of whether a nation is required by God to have "diplomatic ties" with Israel as a form of "blessing" them rather than cursing them, and thus avoiding the "curse". Israel is a nation with its share of wrongs, and it has to live in this world with everyone else just like any other nation. I don't see Christians who emphasize blessing the Jews doing anything for them other than telling the US and Europe to support their political battles (which God said He would resolve upon His return). Yet Gen.12:3 is always appealed to, as if we could siphon "blessings" off from God just by giving Israel political favors.
It sounds almost to me like a "scriptural" validation of the age-old notions of "chosen" races and "cursed" races; "chosenness" defined as entitlements to special rights and priveleges over others.
"chosenness" is really a burden of carrying God's message to the world, and being servants, not specially privileged people.

Chick also argues that America is coming under a curse for turning her back on Israel; siding with her enemies —because of oil. What I find highly ironic, is that we are still being attacked by the Arabs for our siding with Israel. But from another perspective, some have suggested that first, we went over there way back in the 40's, raped the land and people to get the oil, then put the Israelites in to keep an eye on the Arabs. If this is true, it seems the only reason we were ever for Israel in the first place was to have a base to get near the oil. We only used Israel, so naturally would cast her aside when finished with her. Once we got them back into the land, they wanted more, and we weren't willing to trample on the Arabs' rights but so much (since we are now trying negotiate with them directly for the oil). This ulterior motive would seem more deserving of the "curse" than anything else we have done! One good Christian article; Christian Research Institute's "Witnessing to Muslims" by Don McCurry (http://www.equip.org/free/DI225(1-2-3).htm) points out "We need to remember, when seeking to witness to Muslims, that we are working in an atmosphere poisoned by the memories of these and more recent (e.g., the U.S.'s two invasions of Lebanon) Muslim casualties. If we exhibit any form of cultural superiority, religious triumphalism, or selective amnesia concerning the sins of the West, perceived as Christian, we only make matters worse."

Of course, we claimed to be fulfilling biblical prophecy by moving out the Arabs to make way for the Jews, but it struck me when I first got saved and was reading the whole Bible through, and looked up prophecies about Israel, that God did say His people would come back to the land. But He said HE would do it, not man and his sword (Hosea 1:7). Even the most religious of the Jews— the Hasidics, are against Zionism, for this very reason! Yet Christians always uncritically sided with Israel, even though the way they were bombing people out of Palestine didn't seem right, even if it was originally their land, and God promised it back to them, ultimately. Even Philip Yancey, in his Back Page editorial in Christianity Today says "In Middle East Conflicts, they always side with Israel, ignoring injustices against the Palestinians—hasn't God promised to bless His chosen people in the latter days?" ("Compassion Confusion", 9-3-01)

Once again, the best blessing we can give to Israel is to continue to point her to her Messiah. Groups like the Lubavitchers are stepping up their anti-Christian missions (pushing works salvation, such as "7 Noahide Laws" for all, which to them includes rejection of Jesus as "idolatry"), and we need to answer stuff like this. Giving them a piece of land is not going to do them a bit of good in eternity! "What profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul?" It was the Israelites back in Jesus time who were fixated on having a physical Kingdom, and totally missed the Gospel because of it. The Physical Kingdom is God's doing in His time, and for His people. We need to quite trying to do it for Him, because we don't even know what we are doing!

 

Dr. Pat Robertson is right! Many American Christians are not Biblically informed as to why God still has an interest in Israel. The people of the former covenant did not like and in fact killed, in some cases, their prophets. Many today kill with their words in not standing up for men and women of God in the public arena, especially we Protestants and non-Catholic types.

During the Kingdom Age for 1,000 years Jesus will be seated in Jerusalem reigning over the entire world. [Zechariah 14 & Ezekiel chapter 36 to the end of the book].

Would you give up the state you live in to settle all the new people coming into our country from Mexico and Iraq? This 'shoe would fit tighter' if you were wearing it in your beloved state.

As a sidebar, I loved the speech by Senator Coburn, I think the name is correct; anyway he was a Republican from Oklahoma speaking about our moral faultering in the USA, as he spoke before the candidate who desires to be on the Supreme Court.

And as far at Robertson and the killing of that terrorist, dictator from South America, {was it Chevez?} the CIA at times does eliminate evil men like this in our world. This is not new information, though our government had to deny it after the idea was made public.

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]Isn't that pretty much symptomatic of the whole Word of Faith heresy? I would say that he is a typical follower of Pat's.

Joseph Botwinick [/QB][/QUOTE]

Where did you get that piece of information from?! You are a liar for stating that. I am not a follower of Pat or any tele-evangelist. I'm a born again by God's Grace...I'm a fundamentalist Baptist out of conviction. Yes he is a heretic but WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MAN BUT JUST THIS LATEST COMMENT IN CASE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

 

CARPRO

I'm not Jewish to answer your question. And also, sin does have a horrible consequence. Although it may be forgiven and washed away...we have corruptible bodies that remember the thoughts and many live with the negative physical effects that were brought in conjunction from sin.

by the way, what is WOF?