PDA

View Full Version : Pat Robertson: Fake Christian?? Which verses warn of this?



RealPatriot
Nov 8th 2007, 05:39 AM
Hello,

I'm a fellow Christian who believes wholeheartedly after today that Pat Robertson is a fake Christian.

He has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president in '08.

There can only be one of two things going on here.

1. Pat has been paid a large sum of money by Rudy, or somebody else that wants Rudy to get the Christian vote.

2. He's not really a Christian.


He has endorsed somebody who is pro-choice, anti-gun, racist, and a Catholic.

Nothing against Catholics at all. I know plenty of God-fearing Catholics who are devoted to Christ. But why wouldn't Pat endorse somebody that's non-denominational or even non-Catholic?

It's all starting to make sense now. Pat made most of his money from the oil industry. Something that he still endorses big-time! Just look into his latest endorsement of opening a refinery in California.

He supports murderers, crooks, and corporations. It's all becoming clear.

He is a false prophet.


What are some biblical verses that warn about people like this??

Thanks!

jeffreys
Nov 8th 2007, 05:45 AM
While I'm no huge fan of either Rudy Guiliani, or Pat Robertson, I think you might be speaking rather harshly when you say Robertson either isn't a Christian, is a false prophet, or has been paid off. :hmm:

RealPatriot
Nov 8th 2007, 06:00 AM
Yeah but it's so obvious why he's endorsing Rudy.

Pat made most of his riches in the oil industry and that continues to this day.

He's endorsing a war-monger so that his oil interests will be protected. Why do you think he called for the assassination of Chavez? To protect oil, once again. So in turn he supports some of the dirtiest organizations in the world. Organizations which are willing to kill, extort, and even torture to protect their oil as well.


What are verses that warn of false prophets, or people that preach The Word but practice otherwise?

Duane Morse
Nov 8th 2007, 07:59 AM
Maybe the board should have "Gossip and Bash" forum.

RealPatriot
Nov 8th 2007, 08:26 AM
It's not bashing or gossip if it's true! :P

Duane Morse
Nov 8th 2007, 08:42 AM
He has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president in '08.

There can only be one of two things going on here.

1. Pat has been paid a large sum of money by Rudy, or somebody else that wants Rudy to get the Christian vote.

2. He's not really a Christian.




OK.

Show us some proof, and not merely your own speculations and accusations.

Until you can, it remains gossip and bashing - not to mention slander, libel and defamation of character.

ikester7579
Nov 8th 2007, 08:46 AM
What Pat Robertson is, is a Christian who compromises the faith. Does that make someone unsaved? If it did, we all would be unsaved.

How does a Christian tell if another Christian is not what he claims to be? God's word says: By their fruits ye shall know them. Does Pat's ministry produce fruit of the kingdom? Yes it does. It producing souls for the harvest. Now why does this make a difference?

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

mk 3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

lk 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

So if Pat's ministry is of Satanic nature because he is a fake Christian. Then Satan is working against himself through Pat by allowing souls to be saved.

So is Pat a fake Christian? Nope. Again, he is a Christian that compromises his faith. And it will be judged as such by the only person that has the actual power to judge rightly. Which makes our judgement here, what? Gossip.

lk 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

lk 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Is there anyone at this forum that has never compromised your faith in one way or another? I think not. So what does that make us when we judge another for a sin we have committed ourselves? Hypocrites.

jeffweeder
Nov 8th 2007, 10:21 AM
I'm a fellow Christian who believes wholeheartedly after today that Pat Robertson is a fake Christian.

He has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president in '08.


Well there are a lot of False out there, but i am not sure what he preaches.
Neither do i know what Rudi will do if he wins.

As a Christian, I would say to Rudi, -If you want me behind your campaign, you will have to give yourself to Christ, and when you do, when you say the lords prayer, you really support, thy Kingdom come , Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Changes have to be made, and i will support nothing that goes against the Spirit of God and what his kingdom stands for.

Arent we really on Jesus campaign trail, getting people into his Kingdom?

pnewton
Nov 8th 2007, 10:21 AM
OK.

Show us some proof, and not merely your own speculations and accusations.

Until you can, it remains gossip and bashing - not to mention slander, libel and defamation of character.
Not to mention detraction. I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, even if I have to go third party and even if the man is a Catholics, for he is a very poor Catholic. Yet as far as Pat Robertson's support of him, that scarcely makes him a false prophet of a false Christian. It just makes him wrong. I would also hope that he and his organization no londer is enjoying tax exempt status. If they are, I am sure it will soon be called into question.

I have seen public figures lambasted by and demonized on forums a lot. When the criticism is their behavior, I believe it to be fair game. When we start talking about their relationship to God based on what we read of their actions, I firmly believe we cross the line that Christ told us not to cross, namely that of judging each other, specifically, the state of their soul.

I<3Jesus
Nov 8th 2007, 01:25 PM
Maybe the board should have "Gossip and Bash" forum.

You know, this post sort of aggravates me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the actions of a person ESPECIALLY if they go against what they preach. Now I know nothing about Pat Robinson, but this person has every right to ask the hard hitting questions. Do we know what is in Pat's heart? Nope, but there is no harm in discussing whether or not his actions are Christian. Discussing something does not equate gossip or slander UNLESS you are flat out accusing someone with no evidence. Gossip, slander and judgment are words that get thrown around this site far too often.

GothicAngel
Nov 8th 2007, 02:26 PM
And choice number three....

3. Pat Robertson has recognized that religon has no effect on political suitibility, and has thus chosen to aid Guiliani because of the political good he would do, ignoring his irrelevant religon.

I<3Jesus
Nov 8th 2007, 02:32 PM
OK.

Show us some proof, and not merely your own speculations and accusations.

Until you can, it remains gossip and bashing - not to mention slander, libel and defamation of character.

Not to nitpick, but slander is oral not written ;)

BrianW
Nov 8th 2007, 03:02 PM
I would suggest that the OP do some research into the policies and ways that RG conducted himself in a professional/on the job manner and the things that PR has done with his organization. Actually knowing what you're putting forth makes a big difference.

In other words you have no idea of the facts involved and are just reacting to how you "Feel" about it. Do some research into the subjects and apply some common sense and logic to come to a decision please.

punk
Nov 8th 2007, 07:17 PM
Of all the stupid things Robertson has said and done over the years, this is the thing that makes you question his motives?

theabaud
Nov 8th 2007, 07:25 PM
It's not bashing or gossip if it's true! :P
Earlier you used the term "either" which meant that the matter of the truth was not settled for you. To then proclaim it as the truth when you are not really sure it is makes the telling of it a bit nefarious.

Matthew 12:21
Nov 8th 2007, 07:39 PM
I do think this is very odd. Pat Robertson has always been...um...very vocal about stopping abortion and gay marriage. And then he...endorses a pro-choice candidate who also supports gay marriage. Huh. :o

theabaud
Nov 8th 2007, 09:49 PM
I do think this is very odd. Pat Robertson has always been...um...very vocal about stopping abortion and gay marriage. And then he...endorses a pro-choice candidate who also supports gay marriage. Huh. :o
It is very odd, but then pat is likely to do or say just about anything.

godsgirl
Nov 8th 2007, 10:57 PM
I think he realises that a lot of us out here-will not vote if the candidate isn't prolife-and we'll be giving the election to hillary.

deepjagga
Nov 9th 2007, 05:37 AM
I think he realises that a lot of us out here-will not vote if the candidate isn't prolife-and we'll be giving the election to hillary.
Right, so what is a pro-life republican to do?

This is so interesting to see a "family values" party endorse and most of all follow behind the pro-choice candidate. This is sweet.

Most reps have no choice at this point except to conform and bow down to abortion as a choice for the sake of party affiliation.

If Giuliani loses, many will began to feel guilty for their compromising positions...only if he loses. One thing will be for sure though, they will still be pro-choice.

Fenris
Nov 9th 2007, 03:29 PM
Maybe Robertson feels that Rudy is the best choice for the war on terror, and that's what he feels is most important right now.

theabaud
Nov 9th 2007, 05:19 PM
Right, so what is a pro-life republican to do?

This is so interesting to see a "family values" party endorse and most of all follow behind the pro-choice candidate. This is sweet.

Most reps have no choice at this point except to conform and bow down to abortion as a choice for the sake of party affiliation.

If Giuliani loses, many will began to feel guilty for their compromising positions...only if he loses. One thing will be for sure though, they will still be pro-choice.
Remember, the primary has not been held yet. The only polling data that counts is the one on election day. We have not yet endorsed him for president.

Right now the media polls have clinton as the clear leader in the primaries, but 4 in ten women, 6 in ten men and 8 in ten republicans say they will NEVER vote for her. How is it possible that she has a big lead going into this thing with those numbers? Because polling data will vary widely depending on the methods.

I guess my point is, do not dispair, we don't hae a clue what is happening right now, and we still have hope of a pro family conservative.

deepjagga
Nov 10th 2007, 01:36 AM
Remember, the primary has not been held yet. The only polling data that counts is the one on election day. We have not yet endorsed him for president.

Right now the media polls have clinton as the clear leader in the primaries, but 4 in ten women, 6 in ten men and 8 in ten republicans say they will NEVER vote for her. How is it possible that she has a big lead going into this thing with those numbers? Because polling data will vary widely depending on the methods.

I guess my point is, do not dispair, we don't hae a clue what is happening right now, and we still have hope of a pro family conservative.
My comment didn't mention anything about Hilary so I'm not sure why you mentioned her. This isn't even about Hilary. It's about Rudy and the fact that he is pro-choice and has no intentions of switching over eventhough he's running on the republican ticket which has defined itself as being pro-life.

The reps no have to compromise and flip flop in order to follow behind Rudy Giuliani since he will be the winner of the republican ticket in getting the chance to compete with Hilary for President of the U.S.

Hope for a pro-life republican candidate, and the reality of that
candidate being pro-choice are two different things.

pnewton
Nov 10th 2007, 01:48 AM
I think Robertson watches too much television. We need to remember that the first vote in the first primary has not yet even occured. There is a reason we go to the polls instead of listening to the polls. The media is not supposed to be the ones in charge of the election and I think America would be better off not watching any news at all for the next year. They are really living up to the main stream media stereotype they complain so much about

deepjagga
Nov 10th 2007, 06:38 AM
I think Robertson watches too much television. We need to remember that the first vote in the first primary has not yet even occured. There is a reason we go to the polls instead of listening to the polls. The media is not supposed to be the ones in charge of the election and I think America would be better off not watching any news at all for the next year. They are really living up to the main stream media stereotype they complain so much about
pnewton what you're saying is true but politics is an old game. Front runners are called out as being front runners for a reason.

Hilary is the democratic front runner because the democrats are very clear about her being their candidate for the presidency. The polls show it, and the democrats have no complaints about it. Besides, they feel it's a win win for them by getting Hilary, they also get Bill back. They are pleased.

Rudy is the republican front runner because republicans have already sounded a horn to their party that he is one they are going with. The polls show it, and the republicans have no complaints about it. Besides, they feel he's the best candidate running on their ticket who could possibly defeat Hillary.

Look at it this way, Arnold Swarznager in California is a republican who is in favor of same sex marriages, gays, gay rights, etc... Rudy is a republican who is in favor of abortions, he's pro-choice. They both bring a lot of consistency to the republican party, wouldn't you say?

pnewton
Nov 10th 2007, 04:31 PM
They both bring a lot of consistency to the republican party, wouldn't you say?
But what they bring is not something I can ever support in good conscience. If both major parties are pro-abortion I wonder how many more will join me in the Exodus.

ComeLordJesus
Nov 13th 2007, 03:51 PM
I went to the 700club website and they have this posted:

CBN Statement

Pat Robertson as a private citizen has recently endorsed a candidate for public office. As a private citizen he has the right to participate in the political process, and is entitled to express his personal views. CBN, as a public charity, does not support or oppose any candidate for public office, and as a result will not address or comment further on this matter.

I am upset that I couldn't get answers about his choice. I feel he has a responsibility to the viewers and supporters of Christ Jesus to explain. Some Club members would blindly follow and support anyone Pat says is fine..................and this is bad especially when Pat won't expand on his reasons of choosing Rudy. JMO

Jukebox Girl
Nov 13th 2007, 07:01 PM
I'm anti-gun and a Christian..... I know pleanty of people who are anti-gun and pro-abortion and are Christians.... My God saves Democrats....

As far as Rudy Guilliani being racist.... well, that's largely a matter of opinion, not a fact.

I personally don't like Pat Robertson or Rudy Guilliani. But to say that Pat Robertson isn't saved because he supports Guilliani is passing judgement on him yourself. And there are verses in the Bible that speak volumes about that, too.....

ikester7579
Nov 16th 2007, 10:34 AM
I went to the 700club website and they have this posted:

CBN Statement

Pat Robertson as a private citizen has recently endorsed a candidate for public office. As a private citizen he has the right to participate in the political process, and is entitled to express his personal views. CBN, as a public charity, does not support or oppose any candidate for public office, and as a result will not address or comment further on this matter.

I am upset that I couldn't get answers about his choice. I feel he has a responsibility to the viewers and supporters of Christ Jesus to explain. Some Club members would blindly follow and support anyone Pat says is fine..................and this is bad especially when Pat won't expand on his reasons of choosing Rudy. JMO

Because they are a 501c3, they cannot mix political things with religion concerning elections. If they do, they can lose their 501c3 like Hagee did one time.

godsgirl
Nov 27th 2007, 01:25 PM
Right, so what is a pro-life republican to do?

This is so interesting to see a "family values" party endorse and most of all follow behind the pro-choice candidate. This is sweet.

Most reps have no choice at this point except to conform and bow down to abortion as a choice for the sake of party affiliation.

If Giuliani loses, many will began to feel guilty for their compromising positions...only if he loses. One thing will be for sure though, they will still be pro-choice.

Not me, I won't vote-I hope that there is a movement in the conservative base to sit out this election-even if it means giving the country to hillary-the repubs. just assume that they will have our vote-just like the dems. assume on the black vote-no matter what their policy.