Duck Dynasty Robertson's rape/murder fantasy

[peach174]

He was talking about right and wrong and judgment.
Not actually doing the deed.
It is you who refuses to get it.
But you go ahead and continue to look uninformed and foolish and continue to try and make a good thing into a bad thing.
It is your right.

You think that telling such a story is such a good thing, then explain to me why Jesus never made up such a story? If you think that such an illustration is what is going to make people believe in God, why don't more preachers use such an illustration?

Because it is a sick illustration and you know it. You are just defending this idiot because the right-wing has adopted the idiots of Duck Dynasty as somehow being literate and all knowing just because they have a stupid show on TV. If anyone else not associated to the right wing were to say something like that you would certainly be shocked.

How about when Jesus talked about this?
Matthew 13:24-30)
The Son of man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

I think that being burned alive would be much worse.

Yes, that is what the Bible says is going to happen at the end. But, the Bible doesn't say anything about Christians using vile and heinous illustrations of acts against children, women and men, to bring others to Christ. You're missing the whole point, which doesn't surprise me.

Again it was not about bringing others to Christ. The group he is speaking to are already believers.

He is making fun of people that do not believe in God. You have no way of knowing that everyone in that audience is a Christian, just like you can't be absolutely sure that everyone in church is a Christian. His whole purpose was to prove that people who believe in God would not do such a crime because they know they would be punished, but that is not true. Many people who "claim" to believe in God commit crimes all the time.....and they will still be held accountable. But, such an illustration is not something that a Christian person would even want to tell.

It is about people in this world who do not acknowledging right from wrong and not believing in God.

But, you read stories about Christian people committing horrible crimes all the time. And you can't say that people that don't know God don't know the difference between right and wrong. Our laws spell out the wrongs very clearly.

Nope it has gone over your head and you are missing the whole point. You are the one who is trying to make it into something bad.

It is a sick illustration, nothing good about it, and the fact that you are trying to make it into some great illustration of why it is good to be a Christian is sad. You really don't understand Christianity much.

Says the one who did not even get what AmericanFirst meant, let alone what Phil Robertson was saying.

I am a Christian.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Personally, I doubt if Christianity is keeping Phil from raping and killing.

It is bad enough that he would say that us atheists would even consider raping and killing, just because we reject his faith. As far as I am concerned he has revealed himself as slime for attacking atheists in that manner. Still, I have read enough Christian dogma on this board to recognize that many Christians think that he should become the spokesperson for the World Council of Churches.

Apparently the teachings of Jesus have become overlooked in the Christian Right's zeal to demonize us.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is about people in this world who do not acknowledging right from wrong

As an atheist I have never met another who couldn't acknowledge right from wrong.

So do you also believe that atheists don't know the difference?

Because if there was even a smidgeon of validity to that BS allegation then prisons would be full of atheists, right?

But instead they are full of Christians.

What does that tell you?

 

[hadit]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

Then you have a comprehension problem. When you hear Obama cheerfully claim "I", or "we" killed Osama Bin Laden, do you picture him in camo, toting a gun and charging the house?

 

[hadit]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Obama once said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". When will he be held accountable for his dispicable words? See how this works?

 

[hadit]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

So is the imagery of Obama bringing a gun into a conference with Congressional Republicans.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

Then you have a comprehension problem. When you hear Obama cheerfully claim "I", or "we" killed Osama Bin Laden, do you picture him in camo, toting a gun and charging the house?

Ok, I get it. Your God ordered the killing of children and the "unborn" so you have no problem embracing the concept of committing crimes against those who don't share your pagan beliefs.

That is your perverted "morality" and I wouldn't touch it with a 20' pole.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Obama once said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". When will he be held accountable for his dispicable words? See how this works?

Get back to us when Obama is trying to convert anyone to your pagan religious beliefs with those terms.

 

[hadit]

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Obama once said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". When will he be held accountable for his dispicable words? See how this works?

Get back to us when Obama is trying to convert anyone to your pagan religious beliefs with those terms.

Obama is the POTUS. He has immeasurably more power than Phil Robertson does. The point, however, remains. You wish to deride PR for using verbal imagery while excusing BO for doing the same thing.

 

[hadit]

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

Then you have a comprehension problem. When you hear Obama cheerfully claim "I", or "we" killed Osama Bin Laden, do you picture him in camo, toting a gun and charging the house?

Ok, I get it. Your God ordered the killing of children and the "unborn" so you have no problem embracing the concept of committing crimes against those who don't share your pagan beliefs.

That is your perverted "morality" and I wouldn't touch it with a 20' pole.

Have a nice day.

So, do you or do you not envision Obama in camo when he uses verbal imagery, or did you just realize you're full of it?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Do you even know the definition of a Parable? Jesus used parables to demonstrate truths.

So, in your mind, it would be okay for Christians to come into a home and rape a man's children and shoot them and take his wife and decapitate her in front of him. And then brag about how they don't have to worry about being judged? Then take a sharp knife and take his manhood (cut his penis) and then mock him because he doesn't believe in God.

Wouldn't you think that someone who would do that does not believe in God, either? The whole story is a sick illustration that doesn't make those who don't believe in God believe in God, just makes one's stomach turn. This Dynasty creep might as well not believe in God.

And, please, don't say that it is a parable. Jesus spoke in parables and He never made such a sick illustration to bring people to God.

He was talking about right and wrong and judgment.
Not actually doing the deed.
It is you who refuses to get it.
But you go ahead and continue to look uninformed and foolish and continue to try and make a good thing into a bad thing.
It is your right.

You think that telling such a story is such a good thing, then explain to me why Jesus never made up such a story? If you think that such an illustration is what is going to make people believe in God, why don't more preachers use such an illustration?

Because it is a sick illustration and you know it. You are just defending this idiot because the right-wing has adopted the idiots of Duck Dynasty as somehow being literate and all knowing just because they have a stupid show on TV. If anyone else not associated to the right wing were to say something like that you would certainly be shocked.

How about when Jesus talked about this?
Matthew 13:24-30)
The Son of man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

I think that being burned alive would be much worse.

What a strange juxtaposition:

You use the bible to defend Robertson?



About your post #189

He's not a Christian. He's a fundie nutter pervert and he was talking to other fundie perverts at a meeting of fundie perverts.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

So is the imagery of Obama bringing a gun into a conference with Congressional Republicans.

And when did he ever do that?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Derideo_Te]

A parable?

Except that PR made it personal when he switched into the first person when it came to him fantasizing about castrating someone who doesn't share his insane beliefs.

So no, it wasn't a "parable" at all.

It was an ugly glimpse into his sick and perverted mindset.

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Obama once said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". When will he be held accountable for his dispicable words? See how this works?

Get back to us when Obama is trying to convert anyone to your pagan religious beliefs with those terms.

Obama is the POTUS. He has immeasurably more power than Phil Robertson does. The point, however, remains. You wish to deride PR for using verbal imagery while excusing BO for doing the same thing.

Except that Obama didn't do the same thing.

 

[Mertex]

Says the one who did not even get what AmericanFirst meant, let alone what Phil Robertson was saying.

I am a Christian.

If you are a Christian then you should be revolted at the story. Only a sick person would take delight in such a story.

 

[Mertex]

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

Then you have a comprehension problem. When you hear Obama cheerfully claim "I", or "we" killed Osama Bin Laden, do you picture him in camo, toting a gun and charging the house?

No, but Obama takes responsibility for having OBL killed. It is conservatives who want to claim that Obama wasn't the one who killed OBL, but actually Bush, so maybe that is what you are picturing, Bush in camo toting an AR15 and charging the house.......

And, OBL was killed in an act of war, that is totally different than some idiot walking into a home and doing what your hero Duck said he did.

 

[hadit]

I can't argue with what he said. It's correct and it's what's wrong with not having faith based moral's.

So faith based morals condone raping and murdering children?

Since you believe he was "correct' you must be as morally perverted as he is.

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Perhaps, but the imagery of the parable itself is horrible and tells a story on on it's own.

So is the imagery of Obama bringing a gun into a conference with Congressional Republicans.

And when did he ever do that?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

He talked about it. Apparently, Phil Robertson using verbal imagery to make a point is enough to bring out the long knives, but when anyone else does, it's perfectly fine. My point is that using verbal imagery is just that, verbal imagery. It doesn't mean the person using it is literally going to perform the act or even condone it.

 

[hadit]

Are you accepting the false premise that Phil condones what happened in his scenario?

Are you saying that he was lying when he was talking about using a knife to castrate someone?

"Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him"

You have a seriously twisted mind if you think that proves he approves of doing it. He's relating a scenario, an illustration. Good grief, you're desperate to gin up hate toward the guy and what he stands for.

I am taking him literally based upon what he said. This came out of his sick and perverted mind. He has to take accountability for his own words.

Then you have a comprehension problem. When you hear Obama cheerfully claim "I", or "we" killed Osama Bin Laden, do you picture him in camo, toting a gun and charging the house?

No, but Obama takes responsibility for having OBL killed. It is conservatives who want to claim that Obama wasn't the one who killed OBL, but actually Bush, so maybe that is what you are picturing, Bush in camo toting an AR15 and charging the house.......

And, OBL was killed in an act of war, that is totally different than some idiot walking into a home and doing what your hero Duck said he did.

So, it's okay for Obama to use verbal imagery that we all understand he doesn't mean literally, but it's not for Phil Robertson?

 

[hadit]

He did not do that.
It was a continuation of the parable. He did not say what if I took his manhood
What he said was and then you take his manhood.
What is wrong with some of you?
1st person: I, me, my, mine, myself (singular) our, ours, us, we, ourselves (plural)
2nd person - you your and yours (both singular and plural) yourself (singular) yourselves (plural)
3rd person - his, her, hers, it, its, himself, herself, itself (singular) they, them, their, theirs, themselves (plural)

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Obama once said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". When will he be held accountable for his dispicable words? See how this works?

Get back to us when Obama is trying to convert anyone to your pagan religious beliefs with those terms.

Obama is the POTUS. He has immeasurably more power than Phil Robertson does. The point, however, remains. You wish to deride PR for using verbal imagery while excusing BO for doing the same thing.

Except that Obama didn't do the same thing.

He talked about bringing a gun to deal with Republicans. If you're going to take everyone at their literal word and ignore when they obviously don't mean it literally, then you would expect Obama to literally walk into a conference room packing heat. Or are you saying that you want to just pick and choose when to take someone literally and when not to do so, based on whether it's politically expedient?

 

[hadit]

Do you understand the words- it's a parable?
It is not about actually raping murdering children.

Do you even know the definition of a Parable? Jesus used parables to demonstrate truths.

So, in your mind, it would be okay for Christians to come into a home and rape a man's children and shoot them and take his wife and decapitate her in front of him. And then brag about how they don't have to worry about being judged? Then take a sharp knife and take his manhood (cut his penis) and then mock him because he doesn't believe in God.

Wouldn't you think that someone who would do that does not believe in God, either? The whole story is a sick illustration that doesn't make those who don't believe in God believe in God, just makes one's stomach turn. This Dynasty creep might as well not believe in God.

And, please, don't say that it is a parable. Jesus spoke in parables and He never made such a sick illustration to bring people to God.

He was talking about right and wrong and judgment.
Not actually doing the deed.
It is you who refuses to get it.
But you go ahead and continue to look uninformed and foolish and continue to try and make a good thing into a bad thing.
It is your right.

You think that telling such a story is such a good thing, then explain to me why Jesus never made up such a story? If you think that such an illustration is what is going to make people believe in God, why don't more preachers use such an illustration?

Because it is a sick illustration and you know it. You are just defending this idiot because the right-wing has adopted the idiots of Duck Dynasty as somehow being literate and all knowing just because they have a stupid show on TV. If anyone else not associated to the right wing were to say something like that you would certainly be shocked.

How about when Jesus talked about this?
Matthew 13:24-30)
The Son of man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

I think that being burned alive would be much worse.

What a strange juxtaposition:

You use the bible to defend Robertson?



About your post #189

He's not a Christian. He's a fundie nutter pervert and he was talking to other fundie perverts at a meeting of fundie perverts.

More lies about Phil. He is a Christian.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are reading things into what he actually said. I am taking him literally.

Why is he not accountable for his own despicable words?

Obama once said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun". When will he be held accountable for his dispicable words? See how this works?

Get back to us when Obama is trying to convert anyone to your pagan religious beliefs with those terms.

Obama is the POTUS. He has immeasurably more power than Phil Robertson does. The point, however, remains. You wish to deride PR for using verbal imagery while excusing BO for doing the same thing.

Except that Obama didn't do the same thing.

He talked about bringing a gun to deal with Republicans. If you're going to take everyone at their literal word and ignore when they obviously don't mean it literally, then you would expect Obama to literally walk into a conference room packing heat. Or are you saying that you want to just pick and choose when to take someone literally and when not to do so, based on whether it's politically expedient?

As opposed to your perverted religious expediency.

Your desperation is palpable.

The Duck Dysentery mouthpiece has a track record of spewing venom against those he hates because they don't share his cult beliefs.