“But it seems to me the Washington Monument is a symbol of America’s power. It has been the symbol of our great nation, we look at that monument and say this is one nation under God.
“Now, there’s a crack in it and it’s closed up. Is that a sign from the Lord? Is that something that has significance or is it just result of an earthquake? You judge, but I just want to bring that to your attention.”
Robertson went on to say: “It seems to me symbolic. When Jesus was crucified and when he died the curtain in the Temple was rent from top to bottom and there was a tear and it was extremely symbolic. Is this symbolic? You judge.”
The Deist, absent God may have been popular amidst certain 18th Century intellectuals....even some of the Founding Fathers of America (Jefferson and Franklin come to mind). However, there is NO place for Deism among those who profess to be Christians...or even observant Jews.
These are two different things I think. A sign from God is one thing and a symbol is another. We add a layer of meaning to life if we are able to look at the events around us and see them on a symbolic level. This does not need any supernatural intervention or explanation, just an ability to relate to the symbols that surround us.
It is clear that you are not a cultural Christian, like most here seem to be. I appreciate your thoughtful comment.
They do not know or care what the actual words say, some people will take any opportunity to ridicule a prominent Christian.
Pat may be on to something - the Temple destroyed as a sign that Jesus was the Way - the Monument cracking as a sign that Obama and his supporters are not the way...
Either way, God has spoken -we can't change it, sign or no sign.
AnalogReigns wrote: “The Deist, absent God may have been popular amidst certain 18th Century intellectuals....even some of the Founding Fathers of America (Jefferson and Franklin come to mind). However, there is NO place for Deism among those who profess to be Christians...or even observant Jews.”
I don’t generally attack Pat Robertson’s charismatic, pentecostal or otherwise non-cessationist positions. Robertson believes that Bible-believing Christians should have a role in civil government, and on that we strongly agree. In the past, Robertson has done a lot of good, and on the points where I disagree with him, I can’t blame him for being consistent with his theology.
I can, however, say that accusations of Deism are inappropriate at best. The vast majority of orthodox Christians until the last century have not believed in continuing revelation. We can debate whether the charismatic movement is legitimate or not, but don’t accuse those who don’t agree with continuing revelation of being Deists. Not just Warfield and Hodge but also Luther, Calvin, and virtually all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation would strongly reject that charge, as would the mainstream of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity.