Dumbfuck Pat Robertson thinks you all hate jesus because you were raped!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/24/pa...ect-jesus/

Quote:Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday offered viewers an explanation as to why atheist women refused to accept Jesus as their person savior: They were probably raped.

The Vaginal Psychosis of jesus freaks strikes again. I imagine some dumb republicunt will pick up the theme shortly.

What a fuckstain that moron is.

I haven't been raped. A guy once tried to drug my drink but I wasn't stupid enough to drink it.

That's the only experience I've ever had apart from an occasional groping.

Pat won't accept reality because he was molested as a child by a priest.

See, I can make bullshit claims, too.

Pat Robertson is a con man. One of the most obvious con men in the history of religion. So many con men gravitate towards conning the religious, a ready flock of people who you already know are gullible.

(March 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Dumbfuck Pat Robertson thinks you all hate jesus because you were raped!

(March 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm)RawStory Article Wrote: Atheist women were likely raped, and that’s why they reject Jesus

No, that's not what he said.

Although I highly despise Pat Robertson, I don't find it fair to misrepresent anyone's views, including Robertson's.
He speculates on why the woman in question reacts hostile just hearing the word God, but he doesn't say anything general about why atheist women rejects Jesus, as the article otherwise suggests.

The viewer is most likely just working together with a nice militant atheist who doesn't give a flying fig about her Jesus-talk.
And I agree that Robertson's suggestion about the abusing father who raped her and acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible is very, very far out indeed, and it is not at all surprising that Robertson couldn't think of a better explanation than that.
And I am not trying to justify Robertson at all, BUT: his suggestion isn't just in the context of someone merely rejecting God or Jesus. It's in the context of someone becoming hostile just by hearing the word "God", and I think that makes Robertson's rape-hypothesis just a tiny bit plausible.

@Modler: wow, a reasonable atheist. Stick around awhile and I may be giving out my first rep point.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Vaginal Psychosis of jesus freaks strikes again. I imagine some dumb republicunt will pick up the theme shortly.

In the future, when you charge others with having a vaginal psychosis, you might want to refrain from then saying "republicunt." Just sayin...

(March 24, 2014 at 4:04 pm)alpha male Wrote: @Modler: wow, a reasonable atheist. Stick around awhile and I may be giving out my first rep point.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Vaginal Psychosis of jesus freaks strikes again. I imagine some dumb republicunt will pick up the theme shortly.

In the future, when you charge others with having a vaginal psychosis, you might want to refrain from then saying "republicunt." Just sayin...

There are plenty of those. Just as there are plenty of reasonable theists.

Unfortunately the outspoken idiots are often the ones who get attention.

‘’Atheist women most likely reject Jesus because they were raped.’’

Unless Jesus was a rapist, that comment really makes no sense. But, neither does Pat Robertson.

What a miserable old man, seriously. To have a television show that preaches these lies and hate speech is sickening.

(March 24, 2014 at 4:12 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: What a miserable old man, seriously. To have a television show that preaches these lies and hate speech is sickening.

True.
But in this particular case, the lies seems to come from the person who wrote the article, and not from Robertson.
Watch his response in the video, he is not really saying anything like "Atheist women were likely raped, and that’s why they reject Jesus".

That guy isn't fuckin dead yet?

(March 24, 2014 at 4:04 pm)alpha male Wrote: @Modler: wow, a reasonable atheist. Stick around awhile and I may be giving out my first rep point.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Vaginal Psychosis of jesus freaks strikes again. I imagine some dumb republicunt will pick up the theme shortly.

In the future, when you charge others with having a vaginal psychosis, you might want to refrain from then saying "republicunt." Just sayin...

Work on what the word 'cunt' means in this context. Let me know if you can't figure it out.

---

(March 24, 2014 at 3:43 pm)Modler Wrote:

(March 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Dumbfuck Pat Robertson thinks you all hate jesus because you were raped!

(March 24, 2014 at 2:51 pm)RawStory Article Wrote: Atheist women were likely raped, and that’s why they reject Jesus

No, that's not what he said.

Although I highly despise Pat Robertson, I don't find it fair to misrepresent anyone's views, including Robertson's.
He speculates on why the woman in question reacts hostile just hearing the word God, but he doesn't say anything general about why atheist women rejects Jesus, as the article otherwise suggests.

The viewer is most likely just working together with a nice militant atheist who doesn't give a flying fig about her Jesus-talk.
And I agree that Robertson's suggestion about the abusing father who raped her and acted like he was preaching to her from the Bible is very, very far out indeed, and it is not at all surprising that Robertson couldn't think of a better explanation than that.
And I am not trying to justify Robertson at all, BUT: his suggestion isn't just in the context of someone merely rejecting God or Jesus. It's in the context of someone becoming hostile just by hearing the word "God", and I think that makes Robertson's rape-hypothesis just a tiny bit plausible.

At the 41 second mark of the video this senile old jesus freak bastard pulled the rape card right out of his ass. The video is there pal. Why don't you fucking listen to him?