Phil Robertson fantasizes about atheist family getting raped, murdered

[stromboli]

All the Nazi SS troopers were required to be religious. Atheists were not allowed in their ranks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS

Members of the SS could be of any religion, but atheists and Jews were not allowed. In 1937, Himmler wrote in a letter to a pastor that an SS man's religious denomination was his own personal choice. Himmler wrote, "Atheism is the only world-view or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS."[15] Himmler resented the fact that Christianity or the Christian churches could forbid SS men from having any leadership role in the church.[16]

[Mermaid]

Atheists are being such hypocrites about this. First off apparently now Phil Robertson represents all Christianity. Hmm, I guess I'll choose Stalin to represent all atheists than.
Second he NEVER fantasized about it. He was merely making a point about morality and atheism (which I don't necessarily agree with), and simply used murder and rape to really emphasize his point. Atheists are acting like he admitted he masturbates furiously to the thoughts or raping and murdering children, and would do it for reals if it weren't for that pesky Jesus!

I'm sorry. What?
His entire premise is that atheists do not know right from wrong. He has no fucking point.

[stromboli]

DIFFERENT COUNTRY, SAME PROBLEM

[Unbeliever]

I'm not saying I agree with him, just that religion should, for a normal person, be an extra motivator not to do evil since they know they will be judged.

But it's their definition of what's evil that's the problem. If they believe their god really thirsts for someone's death, they'll believe it right and proper to kill. Even things as bad as sexual assaults of various kinds could somehow be construed by the true believer as righteous, the "Will of God."

Or they believe that their faith in Jesus exempts them (though most of them don't know that word) from the Judgement, as Jesus has already paid the price for their sins.

[Munch]

But it's their definition of what's evil that's the problem. If they believe their god really thirsts for someone's death, they'll believe it right and proper to kill. Even things as bad as sexual assaults of various kinds could somehow be construed by the true believer as righteous, the "Will of God."

Or they believe that their faith in Jesus exempts them (though most of them don't know that word) from the Judgement, as Jesus has already paid the price for their sins.

Exactly.

L.O your following the no true scotsman fallacy to the letter. Your religion has killed so many countless people over thousands of years, and all they needed to commit these acts was their belief they were doing it in their gods name, making their actions justified in them.
Your own interpretation of what makes a proper christian is no more grounded then the next person, who believes gays and non-christians should be stoned because 'its in the bible', or black people should be slaves 'because god made the clean white folk in his image'.

[Solitary]

Did LO leave the building after he saw the light of truth? Amen!  Solitary

[Mike Cl]

Looks like Logical took the logical approach and left--exit stage left. :)

[Ace101]

If God told Phil Robertson to kill his children and offer them as a burnt offering to him (like he did with Abraham) Robertson couldn't say it was wrong.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

If God told Phil Robertson to kill his children and offer them as a burnt offering to him (like he did with Abraham) Robertson couldn't say it was wrong.

No, other Christians would just declare him to be a psychopath, and most certainly not a "true" Christian.

[Munch]

No, other Christians would just declare him to be a psychopath, and most certainly not a "true" Christian.

yeah they must have skimmed over that part of the bible.

[Shiranu]

Yeah.  In these sorts of hypotheticals, they always go for the most disastrous outcome possible.  Not being able to protect the women is a severe failure in the traditional (aka patriarchal) view of the role of men.  And of course, next comes literally losing one's manhood.  The guy is doubly emasculated.

I realize this is a good bit of a deviation from the story but...

For me, maybe it is patriarchal... but yeah, it would be a huge deal to me if I was unable to protect my family. But that doesn't just mean mom/wife/daughters/sisters, if any one were to threaten my dad or a son... the thought of not being able to protect them sounds like one of the most terrible things as well.

The wife and daughter definitely hits me harder, but I honestly don't particularly believe that is a bad thing. It's not implying that women cant protect themselves, only that men have an obligation to put themselves in harm's way first... which I think is fair. It also has evolutionary reasoning as well; women are simply more valuable then men when it comes to reproduction.

[PickelledEggs]

I know I already posted in this thread, but...

I'm still livid over this.... probably more than I should be... Between this and the shit-fucks in Indiana.... I'm not in a happy place.

[Munch]

I know I already posted in this thread, but...

I'm still livid over this.... probably more than I should be... Between this and the shit-fucks in Indiana.... I'm not in a happy place.

Well just remember, if it was 50-100 years ago, anyone who stood against these crazy fucks then would be considered criminals, where as now we can call them out on it and even politically beat them back.

[PickelledEggs]

Well just remember, if it was 50-100 years ago, anyone who stood against these crazy fucks then would be considered criminals, where as now we can call them out on it and even politically beat them back.

This is true.