Pat Robertson's 2008 Prophesies are out!

As we all know, Pat was completely and utterly wrong about his 2007 prophesies. There was no major terrorist attack within the United States. But did that stop him from predicting the future of 2008? Of course not! He just announced his new God-given predictions last Wednesday on the 700 Club. See the OneNewsNow article here.

Quick quiz for you. What has been making major economic news for the last few months? You got it, if you said the housing bubble bursting. It is causing big problems for not just the credit and financial markets, but also for many American's wallets as well. We are headed for some tough times economically in this country. Anyone who pays even the least bit of attention to financial issues knows this.

So what is Pat's biggest prediction for 2008? Ding! Financial crisis. I guess only God can tell Pat's Christians what everyone (including all other Christians) have known for months now.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says 2008 will be a year of violence worldwide and a recession in the United States, followed by a major stock-market crash by 2010.

So only by the divine secret sharing of info by God to Pat are we supposed to know that a recession is very possible? I again guess that the whole housing market gave no one any indicator at all? But then again, if you listen to, and believe George Bush, then maybe not. He thinks everything is hunky-dory.

The same goes for violence. Is there going to be more or less violence in 2008, and would either be considered, "a year of violence worldwide?" Just out of curiosity, what past years have not been considered "years of violence"??

Oh yeah, there were a number of peaceful years during the Clinton Presidency... So I guess that means peaceful years are bad things, and by this statement of prophecy, Pat is really saying things will be good for conservatives, and especially religious conservatives. Because we won't be living in as peaceful times as the Clinton years. As for the market crash? Well, just like last years catastrophic terrorist attack, it could happen (even though it didn't) , and it could be mild or avoided altogether (which no matter which way it goes, will be called a vindication for Pat -- Prayer via his peeps, I mean flock, and all that).

But I have to wonder.. If God and Pat has this yearly tete-a-tete, why talk about something that could happen in 2009 or 2010, if God is telling Pat 2008's predictions?

Robertson said, "We will see the presence of angels and we will see an intensification of miracles around the world."

That actually sounds like a more reasonable Godly prediction. Because it has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever, and cannot be ascertained one way or the other. Angels will be hanging around? Ok. How do we establish that? And why haven't they been hanging around before? Intensification of miracles? You mean like I put a dozen pairs of socks in the dryer, and when I put them away in the sock drawer, there were a dozen complete pairs.. Its a miracle! Just what is a miracle? A sick person getting better?? I'll tell you what a real miracle is: Tomorrow George Bush says he had an epiphany from God, and is pulling out the troops from Iraq immediately. That would indeed be a miracle.

But what does "intensification" of miracles really mean? The miracles become even more intense?? I put a dozen pairs of socks in the dryer, and I come away with two dozen pairs of socks? The sick person not only becomes healthy, but takes on super-human powers?? I gotta tell ya.. Within the realm of Christianity, words have no meaning and stupid has virtually no limit. (I say virtually no limit, because to have limitless stupidity, Christianity as a whole would have to possibly pull a Jim-Jones in entirity. And I just don't see that ever happening.)

Finally:

Last year, Robertson predicted that a terrorist act, possibly involving a nuclear weapon, would result in mass killing in the United States. Noting that it hadn't come to pass, Robertson said, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us."

Somehow? Somehow?? You mean Pat has no idea if people prayed enough, and even if they did it had the noticed effect?

So if I understand Pat correctly here, if enough people prayed that no one ever died or got sick, or that everyone who got sick was cured, then those things would come true? Because apparently if enough people pray that we will not be attacked, then we won't be; seems to work. I also presume that no actual Christians ever pray to be rich either, since not all Christians are rich. The cop out here is completely self-evident.

You know, the only thing that really saddens me about all this, is that there are still people out there who buy into Pat Robertson's line of nonsense. They are the ultra-gullible ones. Because I am certain --certain I tell you-- that there were absolutely no faithful Christians on the eve of hurricane Katrina praying that the storm would pass. And it didn't. And we had meteorological predictions that Katrina was coming too. But nothing in the way of the eve of the Great Terrorist Action of 2007 for faithful Christians to pray against... Pat Robertson, your god-buddy in the sky was playing with you.

Year End Roundup

Well we once again dodged the Pat Robertson alarmist straight-from-God's-mouth prophesy for 2007. Who knew George Bush would turn out to be more powerful than God?

I wonder what his predictions for 2008 will be? I predict that Pat will predict a strong Republican victory in Novermber 2008. If things go as they should, reality should turn out to be the opposite of what Pat predicts.

So what about you? What do you predict for 2008? I suppose I don't really have any predictions, excepting stating the obvious: anti-science creationists will still try to destroy science and poison our children's minds against reality and fact; Christians will claim persecution any time some non-Christian demands equality; the religious right will still fight to protect life and simultaneously be pro-war and pro-death penalty. I could go on, but you get the idea.

The new year offers all of us new potential and promise. But at the same time, we all know that some things will never change. Bill O'Reilly will still bloviate that there is a war on Christmas, Ann Coulter will prove once again that stupidity has no limit, and conservative Christianity will still be threatened by the fact that that their virus of belief has not affected every single human on the planet.

But on the bright side, every day that we retain our freedom and improve upon the equality of opportunity for all is a day that we win.

Things I am Tired Of, But Appreciate Anyway

One of the biggest traffic attractions to my blog is... Pat Robertson and his prophecies for this year. I have to admit that I hate that the topic which brings the most people to my blog is also the most absurd. I have yet to find one single Christian who thinks Pat is in any way a messenger of God or even simply sane. But that stands in stark contradiction to the fact that he remains a very popular and influential televangelist.

However, my rather silly insights into the whole Pat Robertson annual tete-a-tete with God is exactly what brings the most traffic to my blog. People want to know what he says and and what others (like me) think about it. That is fine. I think he is nuts, as do many Christians. But that is not what I want to be as my main message to the world. I intend to show how Christianity is a damaging worldview (much like Christopher Hitchens in his book) along with all other diety-based religions/worldviews. I continually show how those very religions who claim to 'save' humanity are the very same groups who harm it most. I also use morality as a tool for this end. Morality is something which is common to all peoples. But it is not the same for all peoples and is continually changing throughout time. The 'absolute morality' of Christians is no different. The only thing which can be said when it comes to morality is that it is merely a set of guidelines for a civilization to survive. And the more effective those guidelines are, the longer that civilization exists. In other words, it is purely human-based. Even in religious circles, their morality is only valid as long as it propagates their community. No God involved -- Only human survival.

This has been the goal of my blog since its inception. But I guess I'll have to live with the fact that this is no longer relevant, only what Pat Robertson has to say as far as what he 'hears' from God. As that seems to be the only attractor to my blog.

Popular Pat Robertson and his Prophesy

Lest everyone forget (and I know you haven't) it is September. That can only mean one thing -- well it means many things; football, 9-11, and of course the beginning of the "red zone" according to Pat Robertson. Earlier this year I wrote a post on Pat's prophecy which has turned out to be my most popular commentary of the year. It accounts for something like 90% of all my hits.

Obviously, most people who google Pat's prophecy and read my comments are greatly dissappointed, because all I really do is poke fun at who really has God's ear, and who God really speaks to. We have God's appointed leader Bush on the one hand and God's appointed Christian mouthpiece, Robertson, on the other. Both cannot have heard God's true words and be right. That was my point then and now. But today, I have to say that I lean (and fear) that good ol' Pat may just be the correct one. For the death and destruction Bush's dirty little war has been enormous, and the billions of people he has offended just might decide to strike back makes it really hard to defend against.

Yet I don't see anything as catastrophic as what Pat envisioned coming to pass. Now since I don't have the advantage of some all-knowing divine being whispering the correct answer in my ear, I cannot say what the future holds. All I can do is look at the facts on the ground and make an educated guess. So please do not call this a prediction or prophesy, for it is certainly not.

It is just what it is, a warning based on the dangers created by people who call themselves "warriors of God" -- and they are both Christian is Muslim.

Even More Christian Persecution Yet Again and Again

It is not even July -- months before the "official" Christian Persecution season begins (around Halloween, when some Christians attack other Christians for following PAGAN rituals). And yet, there is already blatherings of renewed Christian persecution going on. Over at the 700 Club's "news" page, you will find this story, "Jesus Mural Attacked by ACLU". Apparently, nothing was learned from the whole Judge Roy Moore fiasco a few years back.

It seems incredulous to those of the militant Christian right that there could actually be people out there who are not only not Christian, but do not subscribe to Christian beliefs. They (the militant Christians) seem unable to grasp that this is a country of laws, and that the law applies to everyone equally. To force the religious views of one sect (Christianity) onto others in the context of law is blatantly illegal.

To everyone of the Christian myth/dogma I say this: Keep your religious views in your home, in your church, in your private schools, and on the public streets where preachers are freely allowed to preach next to the wino alcoholics begging for your change. But do not force it upon me and others in the one refuge of all Americans from intolerance, and that is our courts of law.

P.S. The last line of the article says this: "He [one unnamed judge of Slidell, Louisiana] says that the ACLU is acting like a "legal bully." -- Yes because forcing Jesus down the throats of non-Christians is in no way "bullying" them...

Pat Robertson Prophecy 2007 Edition

[Final Update: Jan 2008] THIS JUST IN!!1!!1!! Pat's new and improved 2008 Predictions are in!

Pat Robertson, that huggable prognosticator of God, has made his annual predictions (broken CNN link) for this year. Last year it was tsunamis and hurricanes, this year it is massive terrorism in our largest cities. [Update: Alternative link found at Fox news for a nearly identical story]

Quick, someone alert Bush that his Iraq fight-them-there-so-we-don't-have-to-fight-them-here strategy has failed according to God (via Pat).

See also Americablog, Crooks&Liars, and Pharygula.

Besides Pat (and God) telling Bush that his terrorism plan will utterly fail this year -- even God is anti-Bush -- Pat's God-connection will once again be up for scrutiny in a short 12 months. ..And shown to be failed once again.

What amazes me is that a man, Robertson, whose predictions have been completely wrong 100% of the time can claim to have been right some of the time, and that this offers proof that God really does speak to him.

Very quickly let us pin down the predictions for posterity's sake.

Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass killing" late in 2007

"The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

So according to God, via Pat, there will be an attack on American soil that is similar in magnitude to, but not necessarily, a nuclear attack. Be on the lookout!

And when is this going to happen?

[S]hould take place sometime after September.

So look for it in the months of September through December 2007. I know I will be.

What I found interesting though, was Pat's recounting of his record for previous predictions.

"I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

So who knew that if God, the all-knowing, had a "relatively good" record at prediction, that this shows the supposed "perfection" of God? (Well, either that, or it shows how lousy PAt's listening skills really are.)

But if you look at his actual track record, the only thing he got right was the re-election of Bush in 2004. Putting him on the level of absolutely every single Republican who said the same thing. Everything else he has predicted has been completely wrong. This makes Pat, the official repositor of the Predictions of God, one for ?? Certainly not promising. Especially, since even the secular, "evil leftist" media predicted a Bush win as well.

So, I am left waiting, who will win the prediction wars this year, Bush or God (via Pat)?

Any thoughts in comments, please.

[Update: Sept 2007] We are entering the red zone of mayhem.

Pat Robertson Prophecy Redux

[Update: Pat's 2007 Predictions commented on here]

This past spring I wrote a post regarding Pat Robertson's insane prediction of the Earth having weather:

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." [Link here.]

It's now November, and how has the hurricane/tsunami weather situation progressed? Any day now, I expect Pat to come out and say that he did, in fact, hear the Lord wrong. My guess (prediction??) is, he will say something like, "Oops. No harm, no foul. All that Democrat electin' didn't arouse God's anger after all...." Although, in all fairness, Pat never did say when "God's Tsunami" would actually strike the great Northwest. So all you Seattleans keep your eyes peeled..

But I digress. My real reason for bringing this back up is that I just today received an anonymous comment regarding this very post. As it is anon, I have no qualms about bringing it out to the forefront and picking it apart for all (all 2 of you out there that is) to see.

Anonymous wrote:

I see your point. But where in Jesus' statement does he say that Jonas' experience was prophecy? He simply says that, just as Jonas was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish, so he would be that long in the grave. I could likewise say that, just as Martin Luther was born on November 10, I was also born on November 10. I wouldn't be implying that ML's birth date was prophetic of my own, just citing a similarity.

If anyone cannot see the glaring logical flaw in this line of argumentation, then I do not know what to say. First let me requote Matthew 12:40 here:

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" [NKJV]

Notice how Jesus is saying something about his future, not his past. That makes this a prediction. Now, I do recognize that we are mixing apples and oranges here; that Jesus' words are a prophesy, but that does not suggest that Jonah's events were a prophecy. The problem here is how one (a Christian) goes about using statements from the bible as prophecies. There have been many fundamental Christians who claim (as Matthew did in the first chapter of his gospel) that Old Testament passages were really prophecies of Jesus. So your beef, dear anonymous reader, is not with me, but with other fundamental Christians. Take that issue up with them. I am more than happy to wrote off all biblical prophesy as utter nonsense and totally unfulfilled.

The second part of your rebuttal is even more off the mark. To make any sort of comparison to this situation of Jesus in Matthew, you would need to draw a comparison to the death date of Martin Luther, and your (presumably future -- you are still alive I take it) death date. To call it a prophesy that you were born on the same day as someone means nothing, it has just as much value as saying you were not born on the same day as Charles Darwin. But to say that you will die on the same day as Martin Luther, is a very clear sign of prophesy.

Moving on:

Now, as to whether Jesus actually said that, I guess the question is whether you believe that Matthew was a liar. I don't. He was a Levite and a scribe, and I believe that he probably even took notes when Jesus spoke. And, as was the scribal tradition among Jews of his day, he would have been careful to be accurate. Or maybe you're one of those people who doesn't believe Matthew wrote his gospel at all. But then you'd be substituting the guesswork of "scholars" in the 18th century, who second-guessed the witness of history. I personally believe Irenaeus, who wrote at a time when people died for their faith, who studied under a disciple of John's, who had literally a life and death reason to ascertain the source and reliability of these testaments. And he wrote that Matthew wrote his gospel, Mark wrote the gospel taught by Peter, Luke wrote his, after careful investigation, and John, the last, wrote his while imprisoned at Patmos. I believe the scriptures contain internal evidence to that effect, and I seriously question the reliability of later "scholarship" by open skeptics bent on making a name for themselves by tearing down the faith.

Anon, drifts quite a bit here, into territory not addressed by my original post. I made no arguments for or against the scholarship of Matthew, or relating to any other theologian's views regarding it (I merely pointed out that it was written decades after the fact). The reason is clear, it makes no difference at all whether I believe there really was a Jesus who said these things or not. What does matter (and in fact, all that matters here) is that Christians do believe this. They do believe that Jesus was real and did say these things. Or else they would not be Christian (in the conservative sense of the meaning of "Christian" not the liberal sense -- Mormons consider themselves Christian, as do Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, but fundamental/evangelical Christians do not consider them Christian at all). But let us go ahead and address his concerns anyway, just for the entertainment value.

He claims Matthew was a scribe. He then goes on to state his personal belief, that "[Matthew] probably even took notes when Jesus spoke" Fine. Where is even one shred of proof. I could retort to Anon by saying that I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster personally guided the hand of Matthew to write such falsehoods. Whose claim has more validation in evidence? To anyone with any faculties of reason, they would say neither.

Further, my opinions on who wrote Matthew and when add nothing to the debate. For I am merely agruing from what is actually written in the bible. I simply use what is present in the bible, and believed by fundamental Christians as the foundation for our common discourse. It is a seperate debate altogether who wrote the Bible and when. To say nothing about the use and value of prophesy in the New Testament.

His next claim is, "I personally believe Irenaeus". Here is some information on who Irenaeus was, and when he lived (from the Catholic Encyclopedia online)

Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits.

Notice the very first sentence, little is known of him, and his time of birth was sometime around 115 to 125. This puts hims roughly 100 years after the time of Jesus (taking into account the time to become old enough to study and write on the subject). To put this into modern context. This would be the equivalent of me going around saying that Joe Blow personally witnessed Joseph Smith's receipt of the golden texts from the angel Moroni, therefore, Mormonisn is indeniably true. In other words, Irenaeus offers us exactly zero proof of the validity of Matthew's claims. (Also please take strong notice once again that this claim is thoroughly pinned to Anon's own personal beliefs, not any actual evidence.)

Anon's final comment, though, is the most outrageous (even over and above all this, thus far):

Finally, if you are a Christian, then you must believe Jesus is deity incarnate. Why wouldn't he know what was about to happen? To doubt that would be rather silly, IMO.

Two words, Jesus Seminar.


Silly. Funny, that is the very word I would use as well. I guess, it takes on a whole new meaning for the unknowing Christian masses, than it does for those who study up on the material all easily at hand.

Postscript: Let's reexamine Matthew 12:40. Jonas was in the fish's belly for "three days and three nights." How about Jesus? How long was he in the "heart" of the Earth? He died Friday morning, spent Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, and Sunday morning in the grave. Is that three days and three nights? Add it up yourself. You will see for yourself that even the all-knowing deity Jesus couldn't count and was flat out wrong.

Prophesy and the Bible

Back in May, I began this little journey with a prophesy by Pat Robertson, that on the face of its utter ridiculousness had made its way around the internets. This led to a discussion on the nature of revealed knowledge with Bryan at the Narrow (Bryan has since given up blogging but maintains his archives -- I will miss him, and wish him well on his noble cause of focusing on the family). Bryan took the stance that revealed knowledge was allowable if it coincided with that found in the Bible. He used as evidence of this, all the prophesies in the Bible which had come true. I maintained then, as I do now, that I was not referring to biblical knowledge, only that any revealed knowledge which said that the Bible is true is no different than the type on revealed knowledge Pat Robertson had, and which is completely unusable as proof of anything -- including the validity of the Bible. But I never said anything about the Bible itself; then. Now I am.

I suggested a few mucked up prophesies in the last post. I would like to expand on that now. First I would like to give a shout out to a real source of inspiration to me, Dan Barker. His book, Losing Faith in Faith, has a chapter (chapter 25) on biblical prophesy. He discusses the first five prophesies found in Matthew concerning the birth and life of Jesus. I will not retell what he has already written so well, rather I will bring out a point he makes and give some further examples. The point Dan makes is that there are no examples of fulfilled biblical prophesy (not a single one) . Even when fundamental Christians are asked to supply examples, they can not come up with one --- wars, wicked children, and natural disasters do not count ala Pat.

I mentioned Isaiah 7:14 in my last post. This is probably the most common example supplied by Christians, and one Dan covers thoroughly. It turns out not to be a prophesy of Jesus at all, rather a (failed) prophesy of a Hebrew leader who will overthrow the rule of the Assyrians. Simply reading Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 proves this to be true. To make this into a prophesy of Jesus is to read into it (i.e. reinterpret the supposedly un-reinterpretable Word of God) something that simply isn't there. Like I pointed out, this could be done with any passage of the Old Testament to make it into anything one wants. This is not prophesy, it is midrash. (Also like Dan Barker points out, Matthew got it wrong anyway, Isaiah 7:14 is not about a 'virgin' giving birth, rather a young woman giving birth. The Hebrew word is not virgin (they have a different word for virgin) rather it is young woman.

So why is this method of reinterpreting the Word of God not prophesy? The answer is clear; and it is one that can have no rebuttal by Christians who think this is actual real and fulfilled prophesy. This method says that anything written in the Bible can be used for any purpose to foretell anything. It is simple to reinterpret certain passages in the Old Testament to show it predicted Osama bin Laden and the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers, the invention of the computer, the Salem witch hunts, both the Challenger and Columbia disasters, and the explosion of the Hindenburgh. Any event you care to imagine can be culled from the Scriptures if enough distortion and out-of-context retooling is employed.

Here's an excellent example of how absurd it is to claim that the Bible prophesies things, and those things come true. Did you know that the gospels and Acts contain a prophesy of me, your humble jeffperado? It does. Just like Isaiah predicts that Jesus real name is Emmanuel (as we all know from that traditional Christian song, "Emmanuel"), the Bible predicts me. You see, my nickname in the past has been 'jefe', a spanish play on my real name, Jeff. Jefe in Spanish means 'boss.' Now as every Christian knows, Jesus is Lord. That is, He is the one true boss (scriptural proof of prophesy: 1 Cor 3:10, "as a wise boss I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it"). Amazing! It also says that there will be 'false Christs' who preach a gospel different than that of Paul, and I do (scriptural proof of prophesy: Gal 1:8 "But even if we, or another boss, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed"). Unbelievable! The Bible not only predicts what I will do, but connects it to me through my name! The predictive power of the Bible has no limits! Ok, maybe the cynicism is a bit over the top here, but it perfectly paints just how wrong it is to claim that biblical predictions have come true. (And believe me, I could have chosen a dozen other passages from the Old Testament to further my contention that the bible prophesied me, if I took them out of context, changed a few words, and ignored larger story in which they were embedded.)

The flip side to this idea of biblical prophesy is where the Bible foretold something that never came to pass (in other words, failed to prophesy correctly). I gave the example of Jesus prophesying that the end times would occur in the lifetimes of the current living generation. Here I will defer to the wise words of Ken Ham (and here I agree with him completely). Ken Ham has said, "Sometimes a day means a day." He used this statement in defense of a six-day creation period as found in Genesis 1 and 2. I will steal that concept from the good Ken, and say "Sometimes a generation is a generation." Jesus said that those living would witness the end times. Unless there are some 2,000 year old men living today, he was wrong. Today Christians use an alternate meaning of generation, that being era. They say we are living in the same generation as Jesus was, and that the end times are just around the corner (as they have been for the last 2,000 years). I will use Ken Ham's assertion here to claim them to be wrong, and that biblical prediction to be a failed one.

Note: a corollary to this is one of absurd prophecies bound to fail. Revelation provides ample examples of the absurd that only someone having lost all grip on reality could believe. The monsters predicted by revelation do not exist, thus could never appear on earth, meaning a prophesy that could never be true. Unless, of course, we come across some extraterrestrials who vaguely resemble the Revelation monsters -- something exceedingly unlikely.

There is a third category of prophesy that we find in the Bible, that of post-fulfillment prophesy. This is what I mentioned in my last post when I referred to Jesus and his saying that he would rise up in three days. This account was never mentioned by Paul (the first Christian writer) and only told by the gospel writers decades after the events supposedly transpired. The problem is that this is evidence of nothing. If there were records that predate the death of Jesus which showed that he had predicted his resurrection, and then records that prove his rising from the dead, then it could be claimed to be an actual prophesy. For example, if there were Roman records of Jesus' trial which recorded his claim to rise in three days, and then later Roman records showing that Jesus was indeed walking among the living three days later. This would serve as evidence (but it would not prove that Jesus actually did die and come back from the dead) that the prophesy was accurate. Instead all we have is after-the-fact attestation to the story. It would be like saying that Harry Truman foretold of the assassination of Kennedy, and supplying as proof of this a witness who swears that Truman told him, quote, "A number of years from now, a president, Kennedy, will be murdered." Since the only evidence of this is my post here, no one else could possibly take it as proof that Truman actually foretold the future. But this is exactly what Christians offer as proof of the power and accuracy of prediction in the Bible. It is as flimsy and useless as my proof of Truman's prophesy.

Next time we will return to the idea of revealed knowledge in the Bible. Is it revealed or acquired through experience? If it is revealed, then what can be used to prove it? If it is acquired, how can that be proven?

Biblical Prophecy and Pat Robertson

Over at my usual Christian ranting grounds, The Narrow; Bryan has a post up, Pointless Prediction.

[First I would like to send a big thanks out to Bryan, for putting up with me, you are a good Christian. Even if we have radically different worldviews, it is good to know we still listen to each other.]

He and I have basically the same views on Pat Robertson and his "predictions" for an above average hurricane storm season. Our difference lies in the whole idea of revealed knowledge. The comment I made there is reproduced below (sorry for plaigarizing myself here). But what interests me is the response by Bryan.

I wrote:

I think it goes without saying that on this, you and I are in total agreement. I would not have written it any differently -- well except for the prairie dogs bit; I would have gone for the sexier chihuahua....

The only thing I would add, is that I would further generalize that statement, to any and all predictions based on some form of revealed knowledge. It is the basic problem I see with faith. Sure one person can have faith in something (let's say religion -- specifically Christianity). But as that faith is nothing more than "revealed" knowledge at its base, it can never be explained or proven to anyone else. The best example is when someone like me asks a (fundamental) Christian how they know the Bible is literally true, they always end up saying something like "I searched for the Truth, and God revealed to me that the answers I sought are in the Bible."

Again, you can generalize your thoughts about Pat into any and all revealed knowledge, and what you find is that there is no difference in any statements of faith, be them Pat's Tsunami or the Christian's faith in a literal Bible. The reason is that there is no way to judge the validity (or truthfulness) of a claim of revealed knowledge. Pat's credibility (which you question) is exactly the same as any fundamentalist's when it comes to revealed knowledge, because none can be judged on independant criteria. (You best said this when you pointed out that if storms hit, that proves nothing, and if they don't again it proves nothing). The reason you know that is because you know there is no way to judge the actual basis of the claim, Pat Robertson's revealed knowledge. You can throw it out (as you did) because he is a kook, but that in no way changes the fact you cannot evaluate the knowledge itself. And that is true no matter who the person is, or how kooky or credible they are elsewise.

Bryan responded with the (to my opinion) non sequitur:

There is a major difference between the special knowledge Pat Robertson claimed and that which is found in the Bible. The Bible is very clear that it's teachings and truths are available to everyone who seeks them

He missed my point that I was referring specifically to personal revealed knowledge, not the revealed knowledge of the Bible. That is fine. I think my point is valid, and I gave him that I was not speaking of Biblical revealed knowledge. We disagree on that, but since it was not the point, I wasn't going to get into discussing biblical revealed knowledge since we do that all the time. But here is where I got tripped up. Bryan continued to expand on this misunderstanding by bringing up biblical predictions. He wrote:

In contrast, the Bible makes prediction after prediction and through history every single one has been found accurate

This is completely wrong. It is the exact opposite of what happened in history. I thought this some more and think it is worth writing about some more. I hope to return to this next week. But for the time being, one of the most well known is Jesus' prophesy that he would rise from the dead three days after he died. The problems are twofold with that biblical prediction. The first and most obvious was that it was not prophesy at all, it was written about decades after the event was said to have happened. And even then, only based on the recollection of witnesses who said Jesus said it. It has as much validity as a fictional story where the protagonist predicts something that comes true.

The second reason why this is not a fulfilled prophesy is found in Matthew 12:40:
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" [NKJV]. The story of Jonah was not a prophesy. The fact that it was used in the construction of the Gospels as midrash does not make it prophesy. The reason is clear, there was no indication that the original story of Jonah was anything other than a story of loyalty to God by Jonah. It was not called a prophesy of the later-to-arrive messiah. (The same goes for Isaiah 7:14). If this story of Jonah was a prophesy for the death and resurrection of Jesus, then what does the prophesy of David slashing the hamstrings of 900 horses prophesy? (2 Samuel 8:4)

The problem is, that there is absolutely no prophesy in the Bible that can be viewed as actual prophesy. It was all either after-the-fact testimonial or retooling an old story to mean something new. In fact, much prophesy of the Bible (most specifically Jesus) has been shown to be failed predictions. Consider Jesus prediction about his return:
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" [Mark 13:30 NKJV].
The problem is that roughly 100 generations have passed and still no return.

Indeed, Nostradamus has nothing to worry about when it comes to being the king of prophesy, his crown is not in any way threatened by biblical prophesy.

If you have any specific biblical prophesy in mind that you would like to discuss, leave it in comments and next week we will look at them.

In the mean time, here is a prophesy from the great jeffperado: This weekend, the multitudes will come to Las Vegas and drink and gamble, and some will even visit certain clubs where the performers are missing their clothing...

Pat Robertson and Sanity

Greetings,

By now we have all heard or read that Pat Robertson enlightened Dover, PA residents as to their fate concerning natural disasters and God. Apparently, because Dover residents voted out Republicans and replaced them with Democrats, Democrats who don't support Intelligent Design, that they have been forsaken by God. (Recall that just a few short weeks ago, our boy Pat also suggested we assassinate Hugo Chavez as well.)

We also have resident badboy Bill O'Reilly advocating the destruction of an American city -- that being San Francisco.

I just have one question to all you conservatives/Christians out there.. So when conservatives advocate or push for destruction of American cities and towns, when they call for God's wrath via natural disasters on individual Americans, that is defined de facto as patriotism; yet when liberals fight to protect the rights of minorities, the sexes, races, religious minorities, the poor, etc. who are quite clearly Americans, they are labeled as unpatriotic?

I guess calling on terrorists to destroy an American city is the new patriotism; calling forthe biblical destruction of an American town is the new patriotism (and Christianity as well).

Who knew that killing Americans was the best way to show patriotism?