Pat Robertson's Remarks about Haiti

I was offended by the remarks Pat Robertson made a few days ago about Haiti. (If you missed it: he claimed that they deserved the destruction of the earthquake because hundreds of years ago, they "made a pact with the devil.") I was horrified by what he said, and don't feel like I need to explain why.

But, because I was so offended, I went to the 700 club's website, and found a spot where they allow you to email Pat if you are seeking advice. So, I (a la Nathan) sent an email. I told him that I was guilt ridden over being judgmental. I asked what I should do if I said things that misrepresented Christ.

Today, I received an email in response. (I will include at the bottom of the post for anyone who wants to make sure I'm not taking things out of context.) In the email, Pat said:

"[...] All of us have times when we are offended by something. Sometimes we are right to be offended by someone's behavior, while other times we are not. [...] A good principle when someone sins against you is to go to that person privately, and let them know that you were offended. [...] If he or she repents, or if you find that you misunderstood him, then you have helped to mend that relationship. [...] If the person does not repent, then in some cases it may be helpful to take two or three spiritually mature Christians along with you to seek reconciliation. [...] Once you have followed through the complete process for attempting reconciliation with someone, if he or she still does not repent, then you are free to treat him or her as an unbeliever. [...]"

So, I emailed back saying that I was offended by what Pat Robertson said. According to this email, he's supposed to repent. If he doesn't, then I guess I'm supposed to get more people to ask him to repent. If he still doesn't, then (according to Pat) we can regard him as an unbeliever. So...

If you were offended by Pat Robertson's remarks, would you join me in emailing him? If enough Christians confront him about what he said, maybe he'll repent. If he doesn't, then I guess we can all regard him as an unbeliever. That's not my point of view mind you, it's his.

You can email Pat here: http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/askpat.aspx

And if you do, remind him of what he said. Tell him that if a fails to repent after being confronted, that person should be regarded as an unbeliever. Let's see if we can't get him to apologize for using his words to hurt the wounded, and for giving the world one more reason to hate Christians.

As promised, here's the full email. (Feel free to skip this if you want.)

"God bless you with His richest blessings today!

Forgiveness is a grace from God that we all need day by day. It is also a grace that we need to extend to others when they do something to offend us. All of us have times when we are offended by something. Sometimes we are right to be offended by someone's behavior, while other times we are not. Either way, God puts great emphasis on Christians resolving their conflicts with others, especially with other Christians. And we certainly need to let go of any bitterness, negative feelings, or grudge towards other people.

Jesus said, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34-35). When we love each other with Christian love, we will always want to resolve conflict in order to reconcile our relationships, instead of harboring a grudge against a brother or sister. We will want to remove any division between us, and bring healing to our relationships.

In Matthew 18:15-22 Jesus explained to His followers what to do when another Christian sinned against them. Today, individual churches may have different policies for handling offenses. You should check with your church leadership about this if someone in your church sins against you.

A good principle when someone sins against you is to go to that person privately, and let them know that you were offended (in some cases, it would not be wise to go to the person). You do not need to tell anyone else about the offense, (unless they are clearly at risk). You should go with a humble and loving attitude to the one who has offended you. Your desire is to win your brother or sister back, not to win an argument. Do not accuse the offender of wrong unless the offense was clearly sinful. If he or she repents, or if you find that you misunderstood him, then you have helped to mend that relationship. Once forgiveness has been extended, then do not bring up the offense again to anyone.

If the person does not repent, then in some cases it may be helpful to take two or three spiritually mature Christians along with you to seek reconciliation. However, keep in mind the policy of your organization for resolving disputes, whether you are in a church or a workplace.

Once you have followed through the complete process for attempting reconciliation with someone, if he or she still does not repent, then you are free to treat him or her as an unbeliever. In other words, you are not obligated to maintain Christian fellowship with that individual. You are not required in any way to extend trust to that person. On the other hand, you should not bear malice towards him or contemplate revenge (Romans 12:17-21). Release any anger you have and let the Lord heal you and set you free of the pain that anger can bring.

Forgiveness is crucial for the healing of relationships. It is also very important for our own health in a number of ways. Spiritually, we must forgive if we want God to forgive us. Jesus said, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men of their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins" (Matthew 6:14-15). Because we do not want anything to adversely affect our relationship with God, we should be quick to extend forgiveness to those who offend us.

When we forgive, we are positioning ourselves to enjoy the peace and joy Jesus came to give. We also experience more positive thinking patterns when we purpose to forgive. And, there are wonderful physical benefits when we decide to forgive. We become more relaxed, stress is reduced and we may even feel lighter and more energetic. All in all, forgiveness is good for us spiritually, emotionally and physically.

We encourage you to follow the way of forgiveness, and seek healing for any damaged relationships. As God has forgiven you, forgive others. The Lord bless you with peace and joy as you extend the grace of forgiveness to others."

Monkey in a People Suit: David Hume "Natural History of Religion"

Hmm...

Forgive me for writing what will most certainly be a really boring Blog posting, but I think I might write a paper on this, so I thought I'd try it out first. If you're interested enough, tell me what you think!

David Hume

Philosophy is not funny. I understand that. But, I'm pretty sure something funny's going on in David Hume's "Natural History of Religion."

Before I read Hume's "Natural History of Religion" I liked the guy a lot. He had some interesting ideas about the limits of human understanding that really piqued my interest. (Pretend you're holding a ball and you're about to drop it. You know it's going to fall down right? Wrong. What you really know is that every time you've ever dropped something, it fell down. You assume that it will do the same thing again, and in all likelihood you're correct, but you can't know what will happen, you can only predict that what has always happened before will happen again.)

He opened my eyes to recognizing that what we so often mistake for Reason are really just beliefs. He taught me that even though some of the things I believe are impossible to prove with logic, that's okay. Because no one can prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt using nothing but logic. When I was introduced to Hume, suddenly the burden of being responsible for proving everything I thought melted away. I was allowed to believe things again. And it was good.

Then, I read his "Natural History of Religion" and I wanted to break up with him. The book explains what Hume believes is the historical development of religious ideas. While it might have been attractive to some of the people in his day, I thought he sounded a bit, well, priggish.

Consider the way in which he juxtaposes the philosopher against the non-philosopher. (i.e. you and me.)

[Concerning the philosopher:] "What a noble privilege is it of human reason to attain the knowledge of the supreme Being; and, from the visible works of nature, be enabled to infer so sublime a principle as its supreme Creator? [Concerning you and me:] But turn the reverse of the medal. Survey most nations and most ages. Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men's dreams: Or perhaps will regard them more as the playsome whimsies of monkies in human shape, than the serious, positive, dogmatical asservations of a being, who dignifies himself with the name of rational."

Are you offended? Or are you okay with being called a monkey in a people-suit? You can see why I was so surprised by Hume. This is the same guy who let me off the hook on proving that God exists! Here he is claiming that nature proves that God exists! He and Kant almost single-handedly (ok, poor choice of words) taught me about the limits of human reason. It took a long time for me to come to grips with those limits, to accept that maybe I can't know things with as much certainty as I once thought I could. I finally found myself being comfortable with thinking that no one KNOWS that anything is true, that we just BELIEVE things to be true. I was finally starting to think like David Hume.

Then, he goes and calls me a monkey in a people-suit. Jerk.

Me

But, then we discussed the book in class and my professor hinted that maybe we should read Hume as being ironic. Suddenly, lightbulbs starting going off in my brain. That's more like it. Suddenly "The Natural History of Religion" made sense again.

If he's being ironic, then when Hume talks about the vulgar, maybe he's really just parroting what the foundationalists (Enlightenment thinkers) would say about you and me. Maybe he's just letting them see how crazy it sounds when someone actually says what they think.

Consider when Hume said:

"Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts according to one regular plan or connected system."

Basically, he's saying if we look at nature, we must conclude that a singular God set about making it. Why would Hume say this? Surely Hume recognizes that if we look at nature, we don't necessarily come to the belief that there is one single God. Looking at nature may lead some people to conclude that there is one God, but it makes others conclude that there is no God, and still others to conclude that there are multiple gods. Why doesn't Hume see this?

That's when I realized, Hume isn't being serious in this book. Well, he's being serious, but he's being at least a little funny.

You know how when you're in line at the grocery store, and that there's that annoying seven year old in line in front of you whining for a candy bar. His mom gets sick of hearing it and whines back at him "but I want the candy mom!" She's parroting him to show him how stupid he sounds.


That's what I think Hume is doing in "The Natural History." He's parroting the Foundationalists hoping that they'll see how weak their proofs really are.

When you read "The Natural History" in this way, it suddenly starts to make sense. He's not saying that people who base beliefs on experiences are monkeys in people-suits. What he's really saying is that the Foundationalist who thinks that all his beliefs rest on verifiable facts, is no better than the monkey in a people-suit whose beliefs rely on superstition and experience alone. So, you see, when Hume is railing against you and me, he's really railing against Foundationalists.

Only when you realize that the "Rational proofs" of the Foundationalists are on just as shakey ground as the things you and I believe do you realize that Hume is poking fun at them. In short, only when you start to think like David Hume do you realize how freaking funny this book really is.

Lol.

René Decartes