Pat Robertson on if Christians should study the Koran:
Kelly, it won’t be wrong if somebody studies Islam, but they need guided study, because somebody needs to go along and point out the incredible inconsistencies in that book. And if you have a guided study of the Koran and see how much in there is just repetitious, how much comes out of the Old Testament and the New Testament, how much is just plagiarism from the Bible, etc.?.
(via J-Walk)
Comments
29 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.Cannot… move… irony… overwhelming…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Somebody needs to give Pat a guided study of the bible live on camera.
I’d love to see his attempt to explain the inconsistencies in the book that has fed he, his family and his clan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That quote could have just as easily come from Dennett, Dawkins, etc. It’s amazing how even the most fanatical zealot can sound coolly rational when it comes to discussing the claims of other religions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Derek,
Yep. All theists are atheists when it comes to other religions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Still, if I had a nickel for every time the Koran says “Woe to the Unbelievers!”…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Derek
Dawkins is a ‘fanatical zealot’? Is this Richard Dawkins we’re talking about here?
Let’s try not to confuse passionate advocacy with blind adherence, please. As Dawkie himself says, you provide just ONE provable counter-example to Darwinism and we will all stop believing in it in a flash. Same goes for just ONE scientific proof for the existence of god.
‘Jesus has got your number’? Well if he gives me a ring, maybe I’ll believe in it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@GodBotherer, I was not saying Dawkins is a fanatical zealot. I was referring to Robertson. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Same goes for just ONE scientific proof for the existence of god.
Y’all needs to keep an eye on the google ads. ‘Scientific proof for God’ pops up here pretty often.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rational critical thinking from a fundie on the subject of holy text? Man, that started my morning off right.
And yes, the irony on this one is about the best I’ve ever seen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even more fun in his comments is that he says essentially “this book is so full of inconsistencies that it stole from the Old Testament.”
Dude, Pat, you might want to think about that statement for a bit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And to think,we could of had Pat as Pres.and had a great war against those false teachers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
could *have* had, not ‘of’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My best friend is a flight attendant for Southwest and they used to (I’m not positive, but I believe they don’t anymore) stay at Pat Robertson’s hotel – in Virginia? She said it always freaked her out way more than the allegedly haunted hotel they were staying at in New Orleans because the people that worked at Robertson’s place were freakish evangelical robots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religious inconsistencies are just tests of our faith. The magical being put those things in there on purpose. When we ask, “How does He get into my house to bring me toys when we don’t have a chimney?” the answer is, “Just look at the evidence. Obvious He DID get in without using a chimney, so apparently He can do anything. It’s clear that He doesn’t need a chimney. Therefore, it’s a miracle, and you should feel ashamed, ungrateful and unworthy of His generosity for even asking.” The purposeful inclusion of what seems to be a chimney requirement in the mythology serves to reinforce our faith, making us stronger believers in His miraculous awesomeness, and it reminds us of our own pathetic worthlessness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, Richard Dawkins is a “fanatical zealot” in both his “passionate advocacy” for Darwinism and his “blind adherence” to atheism.
He believes in some things that can be measured scientifically, to be sure. But in his stubborn refusal to accept anything less than atheism, he is just as blind as the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I got dumberer just reading that …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With enough stubbornness you can turn around every logical argument to make it sound like it proves the opposite.
It’s how modern mass media, our economy and politics works. And it is failing so badly. I just hope people will outgrow this and learn how to spot logical fallacies… maybe even make it a subject in school.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@lumpi – students lucky enough to study the International Baccalaureate Diploma learn the logical fallacy stuff in their Theory of Knowledge classes.
It’s a shame that more schools don’t adopt the Diploma program.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Phil C. – “His stubborn refusal to accept anything less than atheism”? Dawkins will be the first to tell you he’s ready to accept ANYTHING at all, as long as there is a body of scientifically rigorous evidence to back it up.
His alleged refusal to believe in “anything less than atheism” might have something to do with the fact that atheism is the only take on religion that has ANY scientifically rigorous evidence behind it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not religious, but I’m also not a fool to believe in evolution. Evolution is the combined ignorant effort of racism, and the greed for money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cindy, fool = Evolution? What qualifications do you have to make such an outrageous statement? Your degree in science comes from what university? Waiting for a response. . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cindy, I’m religious and I believe in evolution. what does evolution have to do with either racism OR greed? Evolution a fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“atheism is the only take on religion that has ANY scientifically rigorous evidence behind it.”
The point is that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of any deity. Atheism by definition cannot have “rigorous evidence” to support it one way or the other. As for Dawkins, we all know he’s just angry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pat Robertson and “the others” are more than likely the biggest non believers out there, because if they truly believed in God or what they preached, they wouldn’t risk the hell they would believe in as well, for the material gain. The actions prove the true belief. Now for those so-called God-fearing, Church-loving people that seem eager for all the “non-believers” to burn in hell… well, what does that say about that part of our society? Sick.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hilarious. It’s hard to imagine a more ironic statement. Thank you for sharing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
was he doing a sarcastic remark or he never read the bible?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And if you have a guided study of the Koran and see how much in there is just repetitious, how much comes out of the Old Testament and the New Testament, how much is just plagiarism from the Bible”
This is because muslims believe that islam is the step after Christianity. We believe in the same god, and that Jesus was a prophet like Mohammed, sent by god to deliver a message. But when Jesus’s message was corrupted, god sent another messenger to repeat the message. I wonder how many people know this fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@RB
That was the first thing I thought of. Muslims believe in the exact same thing that Christians (And Jews for that matter) believe in, but they just believe there was a prophet AFTER Jesus. If there is an inconsistency in the Koran, it was probably “stolen” from the Bible or the Torah to begin with. If you don’t like inconsistencies, put down pretty much any religious text. Just look at this:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Inconsistencies_in_the_Bible
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s one of my favorite resources, Tendonut.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0