Televangelist Pat Robertson advises Christians not to argue with “atheist swine” about the existence of God on social media, apparently aware that a Christian will lose an honest debate with an atheist every time.
Robertson made his telling remarks about the dangers facing Christians who dare to have an honest interaction with atheists via Facebook and other social media outlets on his television program the 700 Club earlier this week.
A viewer named Christine asked Robertson how Christians should handle atheists who want to “argue” about the supposed reality of God. Christine wrote:
“Whenever I post something on social media about my faith, many atheists comment that what I believe is wrong and try to argue about God’s existence. Should I argue back and try to prove His existence or should I just ignore it?”
Raw Story details Robertson’s reply:
“You don’t have to do that,” Robertson replied. “The Bible also says you don’t have to cast your pearls before swine because they will turn and rend you.”
“A swine is hungry for nuts!” he exclaimed. “He wants chestnuts or whatever nuts he eats, and he roots in the ground. And you throw a precious pearl in front of him, and he thinks, ‘That is another nut, I want to eat it.’ And he starts to eat, and the thing doesn’t taste good. Then he gets mad, then he turns around, and he takes his tusk and he wants to gore you.”
Robertson continued: “You talk about the social media, you’ve got everybody known to man out there. But why would you put your pearls out, and why would you argue with those people? I mean, keep your stuff to yourself.”
As usual, Robertson is a hypocrite. He tells his viewers to keep their Christian “stuff” to themselves, while he has made a career, and a small fortune, slinging that very same “stuff” to a television audience of gullible believers for decades.
The fact that Robertson resorts to a simple minded ad hominem attack against atheists is not surprising. Referring to atheists as “swine” is a poor excuse for an argument, yet Robertson really has no argument. In fact, he openly admits that Christians cannot adequately defend their beliefs.
Indeed, the ultimate takeaway message here is that Robertson implicitly recognizes that Christians are unable to adequately defend their faith in the post modern public square of Twitter and Facebook.
Some things never change. The fact is, religious faith has never been able to stand up to the bright light of critical analysis. In order to survive, faith has always been forced to remain in intellectual darkness, protected from the bright light of reason.