Pat Robertson Wife Beating Advice

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The son of U.S. Senator A. Willis Robertson, Robertson is a Southern Baptist and was active as an ordained minister with that denomination for many years, but holds to a charismatic theology not traditionally common among Southern Baptists

Doesn't the Baptist church require their ordained ministers to have some sort of degree? Not that a degree in biblical scripture gives one the tools to conduct a viable ministry among challenging social problems. For example, does Robertson have the tools to be a counselor at a Baptist drug re-hab facility?

The Baptist Church is "congregational", meaning that there's no overarching church hierarchy, defining standards, theology or anything (the closest thing is the Southern Baptist Convention, but that's an education/missionary co-op, not authoritative.)

As a result, every single church can define their own theology, qualifications of staff, and so on. There's a lot of standardization, but none of it required. This congregational ecclesiastical structure is why the "Westboro Baptist Church" can claim to be Baptist, despite their repugnant beliefs and behaviours. There is no "Baptist Church" to kick them out of (like there would be for, say, the Methodists or Catholics.)

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

NO, it isn't at all clear that Robertson doesn't support wive beating, in fact his words demonstrate the opposite. His willful promotion of wife beating was the first thing that occurred to him and was the first and last thing that came out of his mouth!

Come on, look at it from a rational perspective -- Robertson is a Christian minister (or something, I guess I don't know his title.) Do you honestly believe that he was really trying to get some guy to convert to Islam, in order that he could beat his wife? I've never seen an instance of a Christian evangelist trying to get someone to convert to anything other than Christianity, have you?

The ludicrousness of that position should be all you need to conclude that it was a joke or vague insult to Islam, not a serious suggestion that "wife beating is fine by me."

reply to post by adjensen


No, I don't think that he was trying to convert that man to Islam. But his words betrayed what was on his mind. His mind wandered and his mouth blurted out advice that was uncalled for and is reminiscent of what used to be the norm for men with "unruly," mouthy wives, violence.

It IS what he said and advised. He was at a loss to provide any other advice other than physically stopping her from "getting away with that stuff."

I know, I grew up with that mindset. You would be surprised what kinds of things our pastor advocated in our little Pentecostal church when I was growing up! "Spare the rod" don't ya know. (Heck, I was ex-communicated for NOT having an abortion back in the '70's.)

I have seen a lot of domestic abuse among church going men, who felt justified through scripture to beat their wives and children, first hand. I heard their bragging and joking about it to other men, in front of their wives, with no shame! There is no room on the 700 Club for that kind of nonsense, even in an off color joking manner. Domestic abuse is no joke!

Making jokes and hinting at domestic violence only inflames and already bad situation.

Originally posted by windword
Domestic abuse is no joke!

Making jokes and hinting at domestic violence only inflames and already bad situation.

I agree, 100%, and as you've seen in this thread, I make no excuses for it, whether it's Pat Robertson, the "South Park" guy, or anyone else. My only question is whether we need to conclude that "Pat Robertson is in favour of wife beating", which is how it is being presented by those with a political purpose for it.

One last thing that I'll point out is that, contrary to what some people have said, this wasn't a live call in or something -- the question was posed on a graphic, so it is highly unlikely that Robertson wasn't fully aware of what it was going to be and hadn't already composed (or been given) his response. In other words, he wasn't blindsided and just blurted something out. Which doesn't speak highly of his staff, who should have said something like "that's not very funny" or "that might be in poor taste", but who's to say, maybe they did think it was funny and had a point. That I do not isn't reflective of others.

reply to post by adjensen

One last thing that I'll point out is that, contrary to what some people have said, this wasn't a live call in or something -- the question was posed on a graphic, so it is highly unlikely that Robertson wasn't fully aware of what it was going to be and hadn't already composed (or been given) his response. In other words, he wasn't blindsided and just blurted something out. Which doesn't speak highly of his staff, who should have said something like "that's not very funny" or "that might be in poor taste", but who's to say, maybe they did think it was funny and had a point. That I do not isn't reflective of others.

Exactly!

One more thing

Originally posted by windword
Exactly!

One more thing

lol, nice.

I had this as my Facebook profile picture for a while to amuse my wife (I'm the one who did most of the cooking )



Oh, those crazy days of yore...

Religious clergy members are now, and always have been, some of the most highly educated folks on the entire planet.

Beliving that some invisible hand is guiding you along in every aspect of your life is far from what i would call educated..Or that you where created out of thin air, or that woman is made from a mans rib, or that talking snakes existed.. need I go on? They maybe well educated, but they are educated in pure ignorance, not in reality

Originally posted by defcon5

All Christians are also Catholic and belong in the Vatican?

This is the other thing that seems so "educated"..You all worship the same sky wizard so why must you people create different denominations to worship the same deity..You twist and distort religious laws to fit into your own beliefs so you can do whatever you want and still be considered "religious".. Religion is the most infantile, self- absorbed, close minded, one-way thinking non-sense ever devised by mankind.

reply to post by TheLonewolf


So what? If it makes people happy. kind and gives them hope, why interfere?

For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say that the greatest good of a man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living - Socrates

I just don't like it when people condemn others based on their personal beliefs, or tell people who share certain common beliefs, what and how they should believe more or differently.

reply to post by TheLonewolf

Historically the clergy have been at least as well, if not better, educated then the nobility in most societies. Even outside Christianity this is a known fact. Whether your talking about Indian Medicine Men, Shaman, Buddhist Monks, or Roman Catholic Priests. All held high stations in their respective societies. To this day, many clergy hold multiple higher degrees in various fields outside religion.

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
why must you people create different denominations to worship the same deity.

First off, saying that all religions worship the same deity is absolutely not true.
Secondly, there are both major and minor doctrinal differences that lead to various denominations within the same religions. A prime example being differences between Catholicism, which contains many traditions that were accepted from the Pagan Roman Empire, yet are not biblical, and Protestant faiths that tend toward using only the bible itself.