Well...it (among other things) is real simple, Quix. I’ll try to draw you a verbal picture.
That is MY opinion of Robertson. You know....mine (hint: not God’s). You keep projecting here....and insinuating that I’m speaking for God when it sounds more like you (and Robertson) are the ones that claim that privilege.
Robertson gives Christians everywhere a bad name. Here’s a sample of just a few of the idiotic statements he’s made in the past: http://boortz.com/nuze/200601/01062006.html.
And here is info about his 700 Club: http://www.forgottenword.org/patrobertson.html
He’s a phony, a false prophet and more of a politician than a man of faith. I’m sad that you can’t, don’t or won’t recognize it....and instead insist on being so snarky. Robertson has made himself and his family extremely wealthy by using religion and professing (pretending) to speak for God.
And...while it’s really nice that you have so many fans on your threads that agree in lock-step with your every word (apparently).....
you really should “”gird your loins”” (hehe) and prepare yourself for the fact/reality that not everyone does or will agree with you 100% on every single subject, topic or issue. That’s why it’s called ......
discussion.
I gather my request for an explanation of how your earlier assertion could jive with facts
was too difficult a request to meet.
I think I’ll go on trusting what I perceive to be God’s perspective on Pat Robertson. Pat is, after all, God’s servant, not yours.
Maybe I could paint a better word picture . . .
1. “A” says that “C” is a popous dork.
2. “A” says or implies that “A” either hears God better; or knows God’s perspective or attitude on such things better; or some such better than “C.”
3. Otherwise, “A” would logically construe reality that “C” had as much of a handle on God’s perspective of such things as “A” does.
4. Since “A” castigates “C’s” relationship with God as such a farce/horrible/a sham etc. then logically, “A” must think A” has a MUCH BETTER relationship with God; is much more in agreement with God on such matters.
5. Which, without a shred of evidence to offer otherwise, . . . leaves the impression that “A” is at least as arrogant, foolish and missing the boat on God’s sensibilities on such matters as they accuse “C” of being.
Seems pretty elementary to me. Sorry the task was so difficult.