Advocate of Family Values Doesn’t Uphold Family Values | Stop Asking Pat Robertson for Advice America!

Advocate of Family Values Doesn’t Uphold Family Values (Re Pat Robertson)

Why do people write Robertson for advice, espeically women?

Robertson is currently an 82 or 83 year old “gender complementarian” who has very definite views about the roles men and women are to play, ones which are rooted in a faulty understanding of certain biblical passages and stuck in 1950s American culture. If you are a woman and write to him with a question, he will usually take the husband’s side.

Women of America: stop writing Robertson questions! Stop asking him questions via the “Bring It On” online section of his “700 Club” site. Stop it. He doesn’t have anything valuable or sensitive to say about most life situations.

Pat Robertson promotes himself as being all about “family values.” But he doesn’t uphold family values in his private life, and he doesn’t support them when answering viewer questions to his television show.

I am using Robertson as an example, because there are already so many videos online of him and his sexist, anti-family values to point to, but he is by no means the only Christian champion of “family values” I’ve seen who is a hypocrite on the issues of marriage, divorce, spousal abuse, etc.

At one time, Robertson was a Southern Baptist preacher. That is also alarming, because SBC (Southern Baptist Churches/ Convention) promotes itself as being all about family values and traditional values.

Hell, I live out family values more often and more consistently than most SBC guys or Robertson, and I’ve never married, I’m a woman, never had a kid, never had sex outside of marriage, and I’m borderline agnostic these days.

I’m not having sex outside marriage, I’m not telling married men it’s okay for them to cheat on their wife, I’m not advocating that people divorce their sick spouse, etc.

Pat Robertson had pre-marital sex. His first son was born out of wedlock. However, Robertson periodically has “anti porn,” and “anti- sexually explicit material brought in to or taught to college kids” spokespersons on his 700 Club show.

Here is a guy lecturing the rest of us to keep our skirts down and legs crossed, but he’s engaged in sexual immorality himself.

Here are some links about Robertson’s pre-marital fornication and resultant illegitimate son:

(Link): Pat Robertson Lashes Accusers

    by By Rogers Worthington, Chicago Tribune.
    Published 1987
    On Friday, Robertson`s wife and son appeared on the Christian Broadcasting Network and said they have a loving home untouched by concern over Tim Robertson being conceived out of wedlock, United Press International reported.

    Dede Robertson said the public revelation surrounding her son’s conception stung at first, but added, “The freedom that I’m feeling and the prayers that I’m feeling have lifted me up.”

On to the next Robertson anti-family, anti- traditional marriage, anti- traditional values gaffe.

Contrary to what most Christians assume, Christ and the Bible does NOT teach that divorce is acceptable only in cases of
1. atheist spouse
2. adultery

(Don’t believe me about what the Bible says about divorce that it’s permissible in situations other than atheist spouse/adultery? (Link): Read this)

However, that does not mean that the Bible sanctions, or that it’s ethically okay, for a husband to divorce a spouse because the spouse is sick, yet that is precisely what Robertson advocated.

(Link to You Tube video): Televangelist Pat Robertson Condones Divorcing a Spouse With Alzheimers Disease

(Link): Divorce Wife With Alzheimer’s – Pat Robertson (hosted by Young Turks on You Tube)

Robertson claims to be “pro marriage,” but here he is taking a low view of marriage by telling husbands it’s okay to dump a sick spouse and divorce her. How is advocating the dissolution of a family over such an invalid reason “pro-marriage,” or “pro-family values”? It’s not. Yet Robertson has the nerve to keep passing himself off as a “family values” supporter.

(Link): Robertson: Divorce Your Wife With Alzheimers

The Bible is egalitarian in gender roles, not gender complementarian (as taught by CBMW), nor does the Bible teach that women cannot be preachers, leaders, or that they are to submit to a husband as though the husband were an authority figure. ((Link):Source)

The Bible does not condone or excuse husbands beating up their wives, but Pat Robertson gets into heresy on all this, and seems just fine with men beating their wives, and tries to make a joke out of it (see video clip below, linked).

Robertson also disturbingly compares a grown wife to little girls who rebels in one video segment; adult wives are not little girls.

Also bear in mind we don’t have the wife’s perspective of the marriage in all this, we only have the view of the disgruntled husband who wrote to Robertson for advice:

(Link – video on You Tube): Pat Robertson Tells Man to Beat his Wife, Move to Saudi Arabia

More un-biblical, anti family values comments and views from Robertson:

(Link): Ugly Wives Ruining Marriages says Pat Robertson

The Bible says that Christians are supposed to care for widows and orphans, but Robertson is anti-family values on this issue as well-

(Link): Pat Robertson’s Advice: Don’t Adopt Children

(Link): Pat Robertson: Don’t Adopt Sexually Molested Children, Could Grow Up “Weird”

See my previous posts:

(Link): Pat Robertson Expects Men to Commit Sexual Sin (and it’s not the first time) | (Robertson says Wives are to Blame if Husbands Commit Adultery)

My follow up post to that one:

(Link): Pat Robertson to married woman: All men are cheaters and sex crazed horn dogs, but that’s okay because they’re men

Here are some more links about Pat Roberton’s fornication:

(Link): Robertson’s Son Conceived Out of Wedlock

(Link): Wild Oats Robertson Rewrites His Resume (TIME, 1987)

    Only one week after Televangelist Pat Robertson formally declared his presidential candidacy, he received a chilling political baptism.

    Press accounts disclosed that Robertson’s first child had been conceived out of wedlock and that the former minister had misstated his wedding date to conceal the fact.

    Robertson, who has condemned sex before marriage, said he had merely tried to “protect his family” in previously suggesting that he had been married in March 1954 rather than on Aug. 27.

    Robertson’s first son was born ten weeks after the wedding. Robertson said that he and his wife Dede considered March 22, 1954 — the…

Robertson Assails Press Admits Backdated Wedding

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Advocate of Family Values Doesn’t Uphold Family Values | Stop Asking Pat Robertson for Advice America!”

  1. Hi,
    I have read your comments about Pat Robertson. I have watched some of the video clips you posted and I thought I should respond to a few of them. I would have loved to respond to every allegation/video clip you posted against him but that is just impracticable. So, I will respond to only a few as follows:

    1) Pat Robertson HAD PRE-MARITAL SEX. HIS FIRST SON WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK: If Pat Robertson had premarital sex, does that disqualify him from preaching against premarital sex? Why do you have a problem with his teaching against pre-marital sex? If someone made a mistake in his own personal life and now, he is preaching and teaching other people so they don’t make the same mistake he made, why is that a problem for you? As far as I am concerned, it’s a good thing that he is teaching others so that other people will not make the same mistake that he himself made. If he previously engaged in pre-marital sex, it is all the more reason why he needs to teach young people to abstain from pre-marital sex because of his first-hand experience of the sin of premarital sex. It’s just like when a divorced woman is teaching younger women how to avoid divorce in their own marriages.

    By the way, if Pat Robertson committed pre-marital sin and has since confessed his sin and obtained forgiveness from God, who are you to condemn him if God has forgiven him? Why do you accuse someone who God has forgiven? Are you Satan, the accuser of the Christian brethren? The Bible says concerning satan, “..For the accuser of our brethren, who accuses them before God day and night, has been case down.” (Revelations 12: 10). It was for people like Pat that Jesus came to this world to die on the cross. No human being is perfect. If we all were perfect, there would have been no need for Jesus to come to this world to die for us on the cross. And just because someone has fallen does not mean that God cannot use him as an instrument to propagate the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church is made up of sinners who have been redeemed and transformed by the saving power of Jesus Christ. If a man who previously sinned has now committed his life to Jesus Christ and dedicated the rest of his life to the service of God and to teaching people the right way, why would you use his past life to accuse him? That is wicked and disingenuous of you; you need to repent and ask God to forgive you. Who are you to judge and condemn a man whom God has forgiven, cleansed, justified and declared no longer guilty of sin? Look through your Bible and you will find that all the people whom God used to promote the gospel were former sinners. The great apostle Paul is a typical example. Paul wrote: “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst.” (1 Timothy 1: 15).

    Another thing I find strange in your write-ups is that you seem to contradict yourself. In your main write-up on this issue, you said: “Here is a guy lecturing the rest of us to keep our skirts down and legs crossed, but he’s engaged in sexual immorality himself.”. Then in your response to helpusserveflorida’s comment, you said: “I have numerous examples on my blog of Robertson acting as though sexual sin is no big deal..”. On one hand, you say Pat lectures us to keep our skirts down and legs crossed. On the other hand, you say Pat acts as though sexual sin is no big deal and he encourages people to live immoral lives. This appears to be a contradiction of your earlier statement.

    2) ADULTERY WILL SEND YOU TO HELL BUT PREMARITAL SEX NO BIGGIE: I just watched the video clip but I did not hear Pat Robertson say “Adultery will send you to hell but premarital sex is no big deal”. There was one question was about Samson in the Bible who went to a prostitute; the specific question was: Is Samson’s visit to a prostitute not fornication and breaking the 10 commandments? Pat answered by distinguishing between fornication (sex between unmarried people) and adultery (sex outside marriage by married people); then he went on to say that fornication is not listed on the list of 10 commandments. He never said it was alright to commit fornication. He actually said fornication was a sin even though it was not listed among the 10 commandments. That is absolutely correct. Not every sin is listed on the 10 commandment list. Fornication is not among the 10 commandments but it is listed as a sin in many other parts of the Bible. It is no less a sin than the sins listed in the 10 commandments.

    But there was another question in this same video clip in which someone said she had lived with her partner without marriage and wanted to know if it was wring for them to have sex. She asked something related to whether it was compulsory or really necessary get married. Pat began his answer by telling her the position of the Bible on this issue – that it is fornication to have sex outside of marriage. This is true and I agree with him on this statement. But I disagree with the second of Pat’s answer in which he implied that a relationship didn’t have to be solemnized; he said he didn’t believe the relationship necessarily had to be solemnized by a pastor or a justice of the peace as long as both of them were committed to themselves, but they could decide to get married in order to qualify for government’s benefits. I totally disagree with him on that. He then ended his response to the question by advising the lady to get married because it was a good thing to get married; I agree with this later part of this answer.

    3) HUSBAND CHEATED BUT WELL, HE’S A MAN: I have just watched this video clip and quite frankly, I find no justification for your attack on Pat Robertson. There was nothing he said in this clip that justifies men cheating on their wives nor did he say it was okay for a man to cheat on his wife. The question came from a woman who clearly wanted to forgive her husband and move on with her marriage, but she was struggling with unforgivingness and anger. Her question paraphrased was: “I want to forgive my husband for cheating on me, but I am having a hard time forgiving him. What can I do to forgive him.”? She wasn’t asking whether cheating was right or wrong. Pat Robertson’s answer had to be an answer that would help her to forgive and to move on with her marriage. It needed to be an answer that would build up and not tear down her marriage. I think that was exactly what Pat’s answer was. Pat didn’t have to start telling her how bad it was for a man to cheat on his wife. He wisely tailored the answer to her specific need; he told her things that would help her move beyond her fixation on her husband’s sin. He told her things that could help her forgive. He was not in any way endorsing adultery in marriage. He only counselled the woman on how she could put her husband’s sin behind her by focusing on the positive aspects of her husband and her marriage.

    4) PRE-MARITAL SEX IS OKAY (OR TO BE TOTALLY EXPECTED) BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SEXUAL BEINGS: I don’t believe Pat Robertson said pre-marital sex was okay and that people could go ahead and have pre-marital sex. Again, you’re deliberately twisting his opinion in order to justify your opinion of him. This is undignified! I believe that what Pat was trying to say is that pre-marital sex is something that happens commonly because we’re humans, but he never said it was right to engage in pre-marital sex. We’re humans and we crave for sex; that’s how God made us. But God gives us rules regarding when and how we should have sex. God says sex outside of marriage is wrong. The problem is, some people make mistakes and have sex outside of marriage, which is a sin against God. But we shouldn’t condemn such people; rather, we should help them to get back on their feet and encourage them to repent of their sins and live right. Christianity is not about condemning sinners. Even the Bible somehow acknowledges that the urge for sex could be so strong for an unmarried person, and so, it says if you’re a single who is having a strong desire for sex, it is better for you to get married so that you can satisfy your sexual desire (in marriage) without sinning against God. So, there is nothing wrong when Pat Robertson says “we’re sexual beings”. Indeed we are! God made us so. God knows our bodies have a very strong desire for sex, but God wants us to satisfy our sexual desires only within the boundaries of marriage.

    5) Pat Robertson’s Advice: DON’T ADOPT CHILDREN: Reposting an earlier response to this video clip: This is a totally misleading headline. I have just watched the video clip. Pat Robertson never once advised people not to adopt children. He was asked if a man was a “dog” for not wanting to get involved with a woman who had three adopted children. His response was that adoption is a big responsibility, and a man isn’t a “dog” for not wanting to take on that responsibility. He never once said that there is anything wrong with a person who does make that decision. Choosing to adopt is a personal decision, and it’s one thing to make a choice to adopt together as a couple, but it’s asking a lot of a man to enter a relationship in which the woman has already made the decision on her own to adopt three times. That’s what Pat means when he says that, “a man doesn’t want to take on the entire United Nations.” He’s simply saying that the woman is asking a lot of a guy to enter a relationship under those circumstances. Also, you’ll note that the video clip has been obviously cut and spliced at the 1:11 mark. Could it be that during the part of the video clip that was cut out that Pat was talking about the positive aspects of adoption and the nobility of those who do choose to take on that responsibility? We don’t know but from the title of the YouTube video, it’s quite obvious that the person who posted the video altered it with malicious intent. It’s sad to me how easy it is for the media, liberals, atheists, etc. to attack Christians, and there are so many gullible Christians that will mindlessly join in on the attack rather than use the critical thinking skills that God gave them and stand up for their brothers and sisters in Christ. What is the purpose of Pat Robertson’s television show? To spread the gospel of Christ. What was the intent of the person who posted this video clip? To discredit Christianity. Common Christians, wake up!

    In conclusion, I think most, if not all, of your allegations against Pat Robertson are baseless and malicious. It seems to me that you’re just so pre-occupied with discrediting this man of God at all cost. You need to repent!

    1. I rarely permit dissenting posts on my blog, so count yourself fortunate I have approved two of your posts to appear so far.

      I don’t think you get the point of this blog.

      Here is a summary of one of the major points of this blog:

      1. There is next to no support, emotional or material-wise (lack of books, blogs, sermons), from the wider Christian community in support of Christian adults over the age of 25 or 30, who have never married and who are virgins.

      2. Instead of supporting adults who have remained virgins or celibates, self-professing Christian idiots such as Pat Robertson, who have large platforms from which to speak and influence people, instead de-values virginity, celibacy, and chastitity, in many of his comments on his television show.

      That behavior of his is also contra to the Bible, which speaks highly of virginity and celibacy.

      Pat Robertson teaches false doctrine about sexualitiy NOW, in the year 2015, and he has been for the last several years I have been watching his television show.

      You can argue that God forgave PR (Pat Robertson) of his pre-marital fornication, but that point is irrelevant to an extent, in that it does not make it acceptable for PR to make un-biblical claims about virginity and fornication now.

      It would seem that the reason PR “waters down” the seriousness of fornication now, is that he himself is a fornicator – he had sex prior to marriage. He goes easier on people who commit the same sins now that he once did.

      PR is not teaching young people to abstain from sex prior to marriage – he sometimes speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this subject, as many conservative Christians do. I explained this to you before, with links as proof.

      PR usually says on his television programs that “people are sexual,” so they cannot help but to cave in and fornicate. However, the Bible does not teach that concept of all.

      PR said on another broadcast (I gave you the link before to this) that virginity was only for Mary, the mother of Jesus – yet the Bible teaches that all single adults are to stay virgins until marriage, not just Mary mother of Jesus.

      You strike me as being a wacko for leaving a super long post about PR (Pat Robertson) on my blog.

      Why are you so invested in defending this charlatan? PR is not worth your effort. (PR is also a money-grubbing Prosperity Gospel heretic.)

      I notice you are not defending other Christian frauds, or those in the wrong, like my posts which are critical of pastor Jimmy Evans and Evan’s comments about adult singleness.

      There are no comments from you under my critical posts about pastor Mark Driscoll, Matthew Hagee, or Charles Stanley. Curious that you only comment about Robertson.

      I cover this guy because my blog deals in part with how Christian culture discusses issues such as sexual sin, dating, and marriage, and on his television program, Robertson sometimes discusses these subjects.

      PR (Pat Robertson), like most of evangelical, Reformed, and Baptist versions of Christianity is not consistent on topics, including sexual morality.

      It is not I who is hypocritical on this issue, it is PR.

      Occasionally, PR will do something like condemn one type of sexual sin (such as adultery) but then turn around and dismiss pre-marital fornication as being of no consequence.

      On yet other shows, PR will make light of adultery by saying that married people are sexual beings and OF COURSE they are going to stray and cheat, so he advises a married person to just suck it up and move on, and don’t worry if their spouse had an affair on them.

      PR has also gone on record once or twice on his show in the last couple of years of defending transgenderism. I know of no other conserative Christians who considers trandgenderism morally acceptable.

      I have provided many links in other posts with examples of these things, with video of him teaching these things.

      Who are you to sit in judgement of me for pointing out PR’s false teachings and his hypocrisy?

      The Bible instructs Christians to pass judgment on other Christians, see 1 Corinthians 5

      12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

      Meaning, if PR claims to be a Christian on his TV show or tries to pass himself off as being a believer (which he does), and he sits about on his TV show saying pre-marital sex is not a big deal (which he does in fact do), he is teaching false doctrine, and other Christians are to correct him on that.

      Many Christians claim to support “family values” but then turn around and do or say things which totally contradicts those claims, Pat Robertson is one of them, as are these guys:
      (Link): Focus on the Family Members Practice Infidelity or Homosexuality and Get Divorced and Remarry – links to exposes

      You said, “ADULTERY WILL SEND YOU TO HELL BUT PREMARITAL SEX NO BIGGIE: I just watched the video clip but I did not hear Pat Robertson say “Adultery will send you to hell but premarital sex is no big deal”.”

      That was not a direct quote – I was summarizing PR’s views, and yes, that is how he frames those topics, as though adultery is serious, but pre-marital sexual sin is not.

      You said, “I don’t believe Pat Robertson said pre-marital sex was okay and that people could go ahead and have pre-marital sex.”

      PR does not come right out and say, “Pre marital sex is okay,” but he negates the Bible’s teachings of sexual purity by making pre-marital sex sound of no import, because hey, everybody does it, and people are sexual, so it’s no big deal.

      You said, “Christianity is not about condemning sinners.”

      Oh, yes, it is – telling them to repent of their wrong behavior and heretical teachings.

      You said,

      “In conclusion, I think most, if not all, of your allegations against Pat Robertson are baseless and malicious.”

      No, my commentary against Pat Robertson is valid. You need to repent.

      Again, I find it interesting you don’t attempt to refute my critical posts about preachers Mark Driscoll, Jimmy Evans, Charles Stanley or the rest. You must be one of Pat Robertson’s 435,546 grandchildren.

      You said,

      “What is the purpose of Pat Robertson’s television show? To spread the gospel of Christ. What was the intent of the person who posted this video clip?”

      No, not really. Robertson’s TV show exists in part to get gullible people to mail his ministry money.
      (Link): ‘Mission Congo’ Alleges Pat Robertson Exploited Post-Genocide Rwandans For Diamonds

      My intent is to point out that Christians by and large do not support biblical teachings in regards to sexual purity, and that includes Pat Robertson.

      By mainstream Christians not supporting adult singleness and celibacy, some adult celibates are leaving churches or the Christian faith altogether, but that don’t mean no matter to you, you’re only interested (for some bizarre reason) in defending Pat Robertson.

      For further consideration, off site link, editorial by author Julia Duin, who is a Christian writer:
      (Link): Where are America’s virgins? Discouraging the virtuous, By Julia Duin

      Are you aware that Pat Robertson is not the founder or leader of the Christian faith? He’s not, but you behave as though he is. If you are a Christian, your founder and leader is Jesus Christ.

      Robertson’s comments telling women not to adopt children, or telling men it is acceptable to divorce a wife who has Alzheimer’s reveal him to be very un-biblical and lacking in compassion.

      (Link): Pat Robertson Says Alzheimer’s Makes Divorce OK

      (Link): Pat Robertson Says Alzheimer’s Is Grounds for Divorce

      You are way too invested in Pat Robertson.

      Robertson is not a solid, consistent defender of sexual purity, adult singleness, virginity, and celibacy – and Americans really should stop writing to his show with questions about morality, looking for guidance.

      If you have ever sent money to Robertson’s show, that is probably also something else you should repent of.

  2. His previous life (son outside of marriage) happened before he became a sincere born again Christian… we all have been somewhere in life we shouldn’t have been. Christianity is a process that grows daily…it’s a lifestyle that God works through. We’re never done (perfect), we’re perfectly imperfect,but the Lord is constantly at work in us.

    1. Reply to helpusserveflorida

      It’s not altogether relevant when Pat Robertson committed fornication. At least, it does not negate some of my comments or views about the guy, and how he is not an appropriate source for Christians to consult regarding their moral questions.

      Robertson usually, on a regular basis, dismisses adultery and pre-marital sex on his 700 Club show by saying, “people are sexual and have urges, men are sexual,” as though that excuses sexual sin.

      The Bible no where makes the argument that because people get sexual urges, God is fine with them having sex prior to marriage, or having an affair on their spouse. The Bible also says that Christians possess sexual self-control, something that Robertson denies (regarding sexual behavior).

      I have numerous examples on my blog of Robertson acting as though sexual sin is no big deal, and where he says virginity is not required for unmarried Christians – which is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

      I suspect the reason Robertson treats sexual sin so lightly, as he oft does, is that he himself is guilty of it – whether or not it occurred before he accepted Christ or not is not altogether pertinent.

      Robertson has also taught it’s okay for a man to divorce his wife if she has Alzheimer’s. Robertson is, in some ways, a dirt bag.
      Please do not defend him.

      (Link): Pat Robertson says ‘Virginity Has Nothing To Do With Marriage’ and Says (Paraphrasing) ‘Virginity Was Fine For Mary But Not Applicable For Any Other Christians’

      (Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson Disrespects Virginity – Says Pre-Marital Sex Is “Not A Bad Thing”

      (Link): Pat Robertson: (basically): Pre Marital Sex is Okay (or to be totally expected) Because People are “Sexual Beings”

      (Link): Pat Robertson to married woman: All men are cheaters and sex crazed horn dogs, but that’s okay because they’re men

      (Link): Christian TV Show Host Pat Robertson is Fine With Trandgenderism

      (Link): Christian Host Pat Robertson Tells Christian Woman Who Married Christian Man Who Turned Out to Be Totally Unethical That She has Discernment of a Slug – Single Women: toss Be Equally Yoked teaching in the trash can

      (Link): Don’t Be Pat Robertson: Learn That, Yes, Abusive Jerks Masquerade As Nice Guys Until They Marry the Woman Then They Abuse Her – Pat Blames A Woman Again For Marrying A Jerk

      (Link): Pat Robertson Says 44 Year old Never Married Woman Who Wants Marriage is “Desperate”

      (Link): “He’s Got Muscles” – Pat Robertson Weirdness (Discussing Tebow’s Sexiness)

      (Link): Christian Host Pat Robertson: Adultery Will Send You To Hell But Pre-Marital Sex No Biggie

      (Link): Is Pat Robertson of The 700 Club Show some kind of secret perv? He’s Creepy

      (Link): Robertson Defends His Horrible Advice to Married Woman

Comments are closed.