Posted on 01/11/2006 5:39:55 AM PST by SJackson
You didn't get the point.
I think I did, you're referring to Pat arrogantly abrogating God's powers. I agree with you, I just don't think there'll be any long term impact on tourism, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Pat patch things up. I'd cut him a little slack in that this is a religious topic addressed in his role as a cleric, at least as I understand the circumstances.
We're not.
Different circumstance, also a stupid statement. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the executive order barring assassinations rescinded. And should Chavez meet an untimely accident, I wouldn't mourn for the people of Venezeula.
No you didn't... and from the looks of it, you may never get it. (And please don't ask me to clarify - all the clarification you need is in what I have already posted.)
He's not telling Christian's not to come, nor changing the project, which alternate financing is in place for. Hirsh is a Likud MK, so I doubt he's a liberal.
I'm with you.
I disagree with what Pat Robertson said about Ariel Sharon but I like it when he's outspoken. Pat says very mild stuff compared to what the the leader of Iran says and other psycho-Mullahs say
Hirsh followed Sharon to Kadima immediately.
I don't need to know if anyone in Kadima is a former Liberal or a Rightist, they are all unprincipled opportunists.
It was more of a shot at Pat than at weed. I hope I didn't offend, good sir! (BTW, my name's a Melville reference.)
Those poor mooselimbs only want peace. They only wanted peace when they attacked Israel and lost Gaza. They are so mis-understood!
Thanks, Sue. I was concerned that the media had again succeeded in driving events, rather than reporting them. My other observation is the "strange bedfellows" relationship between many FReepers and the media they otherwise abhor. My take on Robertson's comments is that he intended to interpret world events in the light of God's providential dealing in world events. This is not to say that I agree or disagree with his theology (time will tell) or his wisdom in speaking on national tv in a way that many can and do misunderstand.
"Facts on the ground" is a common Mideast phrase and perfectly describes the righteous Christians who during Intifada#2 visited Israel for Holy Land Tours while liberal Jews carped, complained and stayed in America. Pat Robertson and other nice Christian leaders led and sponsored these group tours when the suicide bombings were the worst.
I could care less about Christian end times scenarios and how Israel fits in. They have their beliefs and I have my Jewish beliefs. What I care about is Israel and Pat Robertson and other valiant Christians are supporters in a cold cold world.
Well God has different plans for different folks, but I see your point.
I agree.
"I can understand Israel's reaction though."
I can't.
The Bush Administration condemned Robertson's words and then went on to pressure Olmert into allowing campaigning in Jerusalem for the Palistinian elections, against PM Sharon's position. So who harmed Israel and PM Sharon more in this hour of need?
Words are easy.
Robertson's project would bring tangible benefits to Israel. This is a dumb move.
The Bush administration has nothing to do with it. From an Israeli perspective I wouldn't solicit their advice about the security of Israel. As to this project, it will go on.
Such tough standards for Pat Robertson.
I only wish the same standards were applied to the PA and the 'palestinians'.
Why, right now Israel is making deals with and giving away land to people who piss on our holy sites and who's only purpose is the destruction of Israel.
Ironic. I know.
Kadima. Into the abyss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.