Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Tagged under: , ,

Pat Robertson: Revolt Against Trump Is Revolt Against God

From Atheist Republic a piece by Lena M looking at the pro-Trump discourse of the right wing Christian evangelist, Pat Robertson.

Photo Credits: Patheos

Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson (born March 22, 1930) is an American media mogul, televangelist, executive chairman, and former Southern Baptist minister who advocates conservative Christian ideals. He is host of “The 700 Club” and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

On “The 700 Club” on February 15, Pat Robertson was talking about people who don’t share President Trump’s ideas in politics. He was arguing that people who are working against President Trump are actually working against the will of God and the God’s plan for America. Did Robinson actually suggest that Trump became President of America because it was God's plan?

Right Wing Watch also reports the televangelist “wondered if President Obama and other Democrats may have participated in a grand conspiracy to bring down President Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn,” in order to damage the Trump administration.

Referring to Psalm 2:2, “The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed,” Robertson said that those challenging Trump are really fighting against God:
I think, somehow, the Lord’s plan is being put in place for America and these people are not only revolting against Trump, they’re revolting against what God’s plan is for America. These other people have been trying to destroy America. These left-wingers and so-called progressives are trying to destroy the country that we love and take away the freedoms they love. They want collectivism. They want socialism. What we’re looking at is free markets and freedom from this terrible, overarching bureaucracy. They want to fight as much as they can but I think the good news is the Bible says, “He that sits in the heavens will laugh them to scorn,” and I think that Trump’s someone on his side that is a lot more powerful than the media.

In short - Don’t mess with Trump if you don’t want to mess with the God’s authority and His plan for America, Robinson preached. Don’t say later that you weren’t warned.

11 comments :

Henry JoY said...

"0h keep up the fight you volunteers,
For God is on our side"

'Suppose one can invoke god's support onto any cause, no matter how absurd the idea nor how immoral the cause.

Its always easier to sell an absurd idea if one can tag or link it to an absurd idea the punters have already bought and swallowed.

AM said...

Henry Joy,

“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Anne Lamott apparently quoting a priest friend.

Henry JoY said...

AM

despite a I.Q. assessment which seems to place me in a range that's higher than 99.98 per cent of scores, I'm still challenged in accepting that I was once such a dumb fcuker, conditioned into so many sad positions (and regrettably that I sometimes still can remain so).

A report on some recent evolutionary psychology research, that I read last week, suggests that higher forms of intelligence evolved in humans not so much to pursue new knowledge but rather as a utility of persuasion: the functional value being that I could provide a 'reasoned' case why I ought stay at home when you went on a dangerous hunting expedition or rode off to battle. Naturally enough the stay at homers had some evolutionary advantage!

The consequence is that we all still bare the hallmarks of a brain which is inherently biased towards my-sidedness explanations rather than a more noble pursuit of fuller comprehension or understanding.

Perhaps we ought not be surprised after all that there's so many dumb cnuts out there!

AM said...

Henry Jo,

Bob Jones university must have done that IQ test for you LOL

Henry JoY said...

Someplace like that ^_^ Paid an extra few dollars for a certicate to prove it too!

Steve R said...

HJ,

"A report on some recent evolutionary psychology research, that I read last week, suggests that higher forms of intelligence evolved in humans not so much to pursue new knowledge but rather as a utility of persuasion: the functional value being that I could provide a 'reasoned' case why I ought stay at home when you went on a dangerous hunting expedition or rode off to battle. Naturally enough the stay at homers had some evolutionary advantage!"

Have you read Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene'? Pretty much covers this. Our genes strive for immortality, while at times altruism is beneficial to us in this pursuit, selfishness also plays its part.

Niall said...

Well at least they didn't blame Satan!

Henry JoY said...

Steve

in the loosest sense I'm familiar with Dawkins work.
First encounter of him was probably some televised interview with Malcolm Muggeridge or such like way back in the 70's. Although obviously perspicacious he came across as too much the polemicist. Even though I would have been closer to his position than that of Muggeridge I never warmed to the man and I suppose this, to a large degree, has shaped my purchasing choices where his work is concerned.

My point above was an attempt to clarify why smart people do dumb things and insist on holding onto dumb beliefs. My position though is of an evolutionary psychological understanding rather than a biological one.

With regards to Dawkins work I hold more to an 'enactivism' position.
Research on identical twins shows clearly that genetics are not the whole story and challenges Dawkins' fundamental proposition of the gene as a form of "information [that] passes through bodies and affects them, but is not affected by them on its way through".( Richard Dawkins (2008). River out of Eden: A Darwinian View)

Genes do have the propensity to affect but only can exist in the environs of the DNA molecule. The DNA its postulated is a "look-up table" used in DNA-RNA transcription and yet subject to other variables.
(Evan Thompson (2007). "Laying down a path in walking: Development and evolution". Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind).

Thompson goes on to suggest that the cell-environment interrelationship has much to do with reproduction and inheritance too.

Based on even the most cursory examination, I think we'd have to agree Steve that much of Dawkins theorising and opinions are still just that, interesting opinion and theory yes, but not as yet proven by hard science.

Steve R said...

HJ,

Perhaps, though Dawkins work is very persuasive. Though I do agree that it is not the whole story regarding the evolution of our psychology, but temper this with the understanding that our innate psychology is a product of our evolution.

We could dally down the path of 'gene-memory' but this as you no doubt are aware opens a whole other Pandora's Box.

Like everything else I research the more I question things, the more the explanations themselves lead to more questions.

Henry JoY said...

Steve,

that's a healthy enough position in which you find yourself. The more we know ... the more we realise how little we know. And the reason we ought always be sceptical of those who adopt entrenched fixed positions!

I agree that our psychology is a product of our collective evolution but its most likely the product of a mix between whats genetically encoded and an interplay with each individual's environment. What other explanation could there be for manifested differences between identical twins?

I think too that we need to thread carefully with the idea of 'gene as memory'. I believe that Thompson is somewhat closer to the mark. Genes are most likely broad templates: 'a look up table' rather than a well defined encoded memory. Think of language acquisition for example, we most likely carry genes for acquisition rather than a specific memory for a specific language. The language(s) we speak and the dialects thereof are a product of the environment on the broad genetically encoded template for language acquisition.

Dawkins is a bright man, no doubt, yet I feel its his communication skills that are persuasive more so than his work per se. He's not beyond confirmation biases either. None of us are. That's what the 'my sidedness' evolutionary trajectory dictates and why scientific discoveries must be testable and provable through repetition!

Steve R said...

HJ,

"that's a healthy enough position in which you find yourself. The more we know ... the more we realise how little we know. And the reason we ought always be sceptical of those who adopt entrenched fixed positions!"

Hence it's the fanatics who scare me most!

"I agree that our psychology is a product of our collective evolution but its most likely the product of a mix between whats genetically encoded and an interplay with each individual's environment. What other explanation could there be for manifested differences between identical twins?"

Or manifested similarities of twins separated at birth? I am thinking the Yufe twins here..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/12/jack-yufe-a-jew-separated-for-years-from-his-ex-nazi-twin-brother-dies-at-82/?utm_term=.434e68900b60

"Genes are most likely broad templates: 'a look up table' rather than a well defined encoded memory. "

Perhaps, but if it then raises the question of 'what' is looking up that table.

"Think of language acquisition for example, we most likely carry genes for acquisition rather than a specific memory for a specific language."

Undoubtedly this is the case, but not the entire picture. Language is still another product of evolution, allowing greater transfer of information, enhancing pair-bonding, and various other seemingly altruistic behaviours but with the selfish aspect still driving it. Those without the advantage of language soon found themselves extinct via natural selection.

"Dawkins is a bright man, no doubt, yet I feel its his communication skills that are persuasive more so than his work per se. He's not beyond confirmation biases either. None of us are. That's what the 'my sidedness' evolutionary trajectory dictates and why scientific discoveries must be testable and provable through repetition!"

Oh, for a my big TOE!! lol