Pat Robertson: There could be demons attached to your thrift store finds (worship, pray)

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by justtitans

I'm not suggesting you have to listen to him. I'm saying if you are going to take the time to respond to an article about him, at least hear what he is saying before drawing conclusions. If you draw conclusions before even listening to what he is saying, then what is the point of you even responding to the topic? That's like me seeing a thread made by NoCapo and responding saying that you are always wrong because you are not a believer, without actually considering what you are saying. If I don't want to hear what you have to say, I would ignore your thread. But if I go on your thread and comment about you, but don't consider what you are saying, is that fair?

If anyone were actually doing that, maybe I would have an issue with it. But honestly, providing "Pat Robertson" and the quote in the OP,

”Can demonic spirits attach themselves to inanimate objects? The answer is yes. But I don’t think every sweater you get from Goodwill has demons in it. In a sense your mother is just being super cautious, so hey — it isn’t gonna hurt you any to rebuke any spirits that might attach themselves to those clothes.”

is more than enough to come to a conclusion. And quite frankly, I expect you and pretty much any other believer to discount anything I have to say, simply because I am an atheist. I try very hard not to do the same, because I don't like it. Ethic of reciprocity and all.

But for me there is a line. I am interested in discussing and considering the ideas of thoughtful people, regardless of religion. Blowhards, bigots, publicity seekers, and politicians, not so much...

-NoCapo

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by justtitans

I'm not suggesting you have to listen to him. I'm saying if you are going to take the time to respond to an article about him, at least hear what he is saying before drawing conclusions.

Are you aware that you are contradicting yourself with the above?

A) I'm not suggesting that you have to listen to him
B) At least hear him.

So, you should hear what he has to say, but you don't have to listen to him?

Could you explain how hearing without listening is executed?

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Are you aware that you are contradicting yourself with the above?

A) I'm not suggesting that you have to listen to him
B) At least hear him.

So, you should hear what he has to say, but you don't have to listen to him?

Could you explain how hearing without listening is executed?

You don't have to click on the thread and listen to anything he says, but if you're going to respond at least listen to what he says before drawing conclusions.

So that means, if you don't want to hear Pat Robertson then don't listen to him, don't even click on the link or the thread. No one is forcing you to listen to him.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

If anyone were actually doing that, maybe I would have an issue with it. But honestly, providing "Pat Robertson" and the quote in the OP,

”Can demonic spirits attach themselves to inanimate objects? The answer is yes. But I don’t think every sweater you get from Goodwill has demons in it. In a sense your mother is just being super cautious, so hey — it isn’t gonna hurt you any to rebuke any spirits that might attach themselves to those clothes.”

is more than enough to come to a conclusion. And quite frankly, I expect you and pretty much any other believer to discount anything I have to say, simply because I am an atheist. I try very hard not to do the same, because I don't like it. Ethic of reciprocity and all.

But for me there is a line. I am interested in discussing and considering the ideas of thoughtful people, regardless of religion. Blowhards, bigots, publicity seekers, and politicians, not so much...

-NoCapo

That's the point that I am making. It happens too much because people are too narrow minded. If I see something written about someone I don't really want to listen to, I'm under no obligation to listen to that person, but if I take the time to respond to that thing, I should at least listen to it before I respond to it.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by justtitans

You don't have to click on the thread and listen to anything he says, but if you're going to respond at least listen to what he says before drawing conclusions.

So that means, if you don't want to hear Pat Robertson then don't listen to him, don't even click on the link or the thread. No one is forcing you to listen to him.

Oh, well in that case I'm good. I love listening to Pat and his peers, they are extraordinarily amusing, especially when they are delivering dingbat pronouncements such as this business about demon haunted thrift shop goods, or how hurricane Katrina was god visiting just punishment on New Orleans because of its acceptance of homosexuals. Then there was the time he explained that Haiti's earthquake disaster was a divine punishment consequence of the people there having thrown off slavery. There was the time he advised women whose husbands had cheated on them to work harder to make a better home for their man. Or how about this prayer...

Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.

Since vacancies on the Supreme Court occur when one of the justices dies, Pat is praying for the death of justices.

Some other Roberston gems:

Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Long trains full of armored vehicles, personnel carriers with armor, what are they for, the army going into battle against the enemy? They're used by Homeland Security against us.”

I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period

So you see, justtitans, I've done my homework....I listened.

And my conclusion is that Robertson is a deeply stupid and dangerous person. You advise continuing to listen to him because despite all those idiotic things that he has said, one day he may say something worthwhile. My thinking is that if the price of waiting for that worthwhile thing is having to put up with these nonsensical and foolish tidbits of Robertson wisdom, that is not a wise investment of my time.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Oh, well in that case I'm good. I love listening to Pat and his peers, they are extraordinarily amusing, especially when they are delivering dingbat pronouncements such as this business about demon haunted thrift shop goods, or how hurricane Katrina was god visiting just punishment on New Orleans because of its acceptance of homosexuals. Then there was the time he explained that Haiti's earthquake disaster was a divine punishment consequence of the people there having thrown off slavery. There was the time he advised women whose husbands had cheated on them to work harder to make a better home for their man. Or how about this prayer...


Since vacancies on the Supreme Court occur when one of the justices dies, Pat is praying for the death of justices.

Some other Roberston gems:







So you see, justtitans, I've done my homework....I listened.

And my conclusion is that Robertson is a deeply stupid and dangerous person. You advise continuing to listen to him because despite all those idiotic things that he has said, one day he may say something worthwhile. My thinking is that if the price of waiting for that worthwhile thing is having to put up with these nonsensical and foolish tidbits of Robertson wisdom, that is not a wise investment of my time.

No I didn't.

I didn't say you should listen to him at all. I have explained this over and over. Please look at my responses. I am only talking about if you choose to respond to something he has said. If you don't like his stuff then ignore him, but why respond to something he said if you aren't going to listen to it first?

FWIW, the point about feminism is pretty accurate and his point about husband and wives is actually very biblical. I can't say I agree with other stuff he says though but he isn't always wrong.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by justtitans

No I didn't.

I didn't say you should listen to him at all. I have explained this over and over. Please look at my responses to old_cold.

I know. And my post, which I don't think you actually read, reflects this. You said "if" we are going to have anything to say about Robertson, we should at least listen to him first.

And...well, I established that I have listened.

And Robertson has established that he is a prime magnitude fool.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I know. And my post, which I don't think you actually read, reflects this. You said "if" we are going to have anything to say about Robertson, we should at least listen to him first.

And...well, I established that I have listened.

And Robertson has established that he is a prime magnitude fool.

I didn't say I disagreed with you, so what's your point? I have already acknowledged that he says outlandish things.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by justtitans

FWIW, the point about feminism is pretty accurate and his point about husband and wives is actually very biblical. .

If it is accurate, then you should not have a problem finding a quote, or report of an action, where someone representing the feminist movement advocated...
A) kill their children
B) practice witchcraft
C) destroy capitalism
D) become lesbians

Could you please do this for us so that we can verify your pronouncement of accuracy?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by justtitans

I didn't say I disagreed with you, so what's your point? I have already acknowledged that he says outlandish things.

The point was the last thing I wrote...that Robertson is a prime magnitude fool.

Why are you defending a prime magnitude fool?