Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He labeled homosexuality to be not just sin, but a source of sin, and he equated it with drunkenness and terrorism. Plus, your cut wasn't all he said.Alec Baldwin...
Kobe Bryant...
Tracy Morgan.....
Here's what Robertson said,
Yes, he was talking about sin, not specifically about homosexuality.
I'm not sure what your point is here, but I don't think there is any way to downplay what he said in any significant way.
Q: What, in your mind, is sinful?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
He labeled homosexuality to be not just sin, but a source of sin, and he equated it with drunkenness and terrorism. Plus, your cut wasn't all he said.Yes, he was talking about sin, not specifically about homosexuality.
I'm not sure what your point is here, but I don't think there is any way to downplay what he said in any significant way.
What's your point? Do you deny the bible says homosexual acts are a sin?
I really do not believe there will EVER be a time when Robertson's comments will be (or should be) considered acceptable - even after same sex persons have equal rights and it isn't a serious political issue anymore.What is intolerable is ANY group who would presume to physically or materially punish or harm either Ellen Degeneres or Phil Robertson for no other reason than they express a personal opinion or because they are who they are.
For example, it's not acceptable for people in the public eye to express KKK ideals. If some entertainer or other person in the public eye does so, they can expect significant response.
People didn't appreciate Mel Gibson's unbelievably stupid remarks, either.
Robertson is just one more idiot in a long line of idiots who have seemed to think they can express any hate they want and it will somehow be seen as acceptable - when it is not.
Alec Baldwin...
Kobe Bryant...
Tracy Morgan.....
Here's what Robertson said,
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
Still, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” he added. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus, whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ‘em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
Well, maybe just to freshen up this interminable conversation we should move to the thing Robertson said about marriage, i.e.,
that the best age for a girl to get married was 15 or 16, that if you marry one at 20 you're getting one that's too old.
lol, maybe the guy's not 100% crazy...
What was the age of consent 50 years ago in LA?
Or am I the only one who finds it more than offensive to be listing homosexuals alongside terrorists?
Or am I the only one who finds it more than offensive to be listing homosexuals alongside terrorists?
I'm sure that you aren't the only one, but what he seems to be trying to get across is that there aren't "degrees" of sin and all sins are equal (except blaspheming). He then explains that for any sin to be forgiven, we must accept Jesus as our savior. That's a basic tenet of Christianity.
Or am I the only one who finds it more than offensive to be listing homosexuals alongside terrorists?
I'm sure that you aren't the only one, but what he seems to be trying to get across is that there aren't "degrees" of sin and all sins are equal (except blaspheming). He then explains that for any sin to be forgiven, we must accept Jesus as our savior. That's a basic tenet of Christianity.
If all sins are equal in Christianity, then why did Mr. Robertson go out of his way to list the three groups he obviously thinks are (for him) the most disgusting of all?
Well, maybe just to freshen up this interminable conversation we should move to the thing Robertson said about marriage, i.e.,
that the best age for a girl to get married was 15 or 16, that if you marry one at 20 you're getting one that's too old.
lol, maybe the guy's not 100% crazy...
What was the age of consent 50 years ago in LA?
I can't be specific to Louisiana but it was 14 in some parts of the South as recently as 1950and is still 16 (with parents consent) in some places.
Hmmmm, wonder how many Christians would like to see that?
I personally would find it distasteful and intolerant.
I'm sure that you aren't the only one, but what he seems to be trying to get across is that there aren't "degrees" of sin and all sins are equal (except blaspheming). He then explains that for any sin to be forgiven, we must accept Jesus as our savior. That's a basic tenet of Christianity.
If all sins are equal in Christianity, then why did Mr. Robertson go out of his way to list the three groups he obviously thinks are (for him) the most disgusting of all?
*yawn* You'd have to ask him as it's not clear to me...perhaps it related to something he and the author of the article were talking about earlier that wasn't included in the article. You'd have to ask Robertson or the reporter.
We react to sins as humans. God reacts to sins as God. That is the basic difference.
If all sins are equal in Christianity, then why did Mr. Robertson go out of his way to list the three groups he obviously thinks are (for him) the most disgusting of all?
*yawn* You'd have to ask him as it's not clear to me...perhaps it related to something he and the author of the article were talking about earlier that wasn't included in the article. You'd have to ask Robertson or the reporter.
It is true that the Bible says no one sin is greater than any other. But, personally, I would have found it much more disagreeable for some woman and my husband to have committed adultery than I would find the shoplifting by a stranger of a small item from a department store. While God may hold all sins to be equal, except for that part about forgiving 70 x 7, I don't think He would be particularly put out if I were to be much more hurt by the first sin than the latter sin in my example. The first would have caused a great deal of travail and chaos in my own life whereas the second would not. Moreover in our human endeavor to mete out justice fitting of the crime, we do not hold all violations to the same punishment. Now having said that, nowhere in the Bible, nor in any other ancient writing I have dug up, have I read any description of human punishment in the afterlife that remotely resembles the various different levels of hell in Durante (Dante) Alighieri's The Inferno. That is a pure fabrication. The Egyptian version of trials of the afterlife were not permanent but were tests the human had to pass to make it to a better place. And I also don't recall any Biblical account of purgatory. Not saying it isn't there somewhere, but I suspect that is more an invention of men, other than Jesus, to give some explanation of what happens to innocents who have not had the opportunity to repent of their original sin.
We react to sins as humans. God reacts to sins as God. That is the basic difference.
Hmmmm, wonder how many Christians would like to see that?
I personally would find it distasteful and intolerant.
that's because you are a leftard. Being constantly "offended" and finding everything which does not agree with your leftards' agenda to be "intolerant" is your modus operandi.
It is not the only one possible under the sun. And let me tell you more - it is not the best one either
"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher
In the case of the Ducks guy (I don't watch the show) he absolutely got a raw deal. But then, as a Fox News person said last night (and I said in other posts about this issue previously) he signed a contract to get the show. If he then did or said something that borke the contract, then whatever punishment was instituted in the contract was appropriate.
Absent a contract, he would have been free to say whatever he likes. Of course, no one would then know who he is. So the matter's not a straight foward 1st Amendment issue. It's a contract law issue if anything.
"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher
In the case of the Ducks guy (I don't watch the show) he absolutely got a raw deal. But then, as a Fox News person said last night (and I said in other posts about this issue previously) he signed a contract to get the show. If he then did or said something that borke the contract, then whatever punishment was instituted in the contract was appropriate.
Absent a contract, he would have been free to say whatever he likes. Of course, no one would then know who he is. So the matter's not a straight foward 1st Amendment issue. It's a contract law issue if anything.
Motherwolf here. I cannot believe you people are talking about tv shows and crap. You better wake up. You have chemtrails dumping poison on you, GMO poisoning you, military vehicles building up in your state, military ready to Kill on Command. What the hell is wrong with you?
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.
It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.
It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..
. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.
For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.
Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?
NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
Motherwolf here. Are you people for real? You are talking about trivial crap when you have DHS vehicles placed in your states, chemtrails poisoning you, GMO's sterilizing you, Military personel ready to fire on you for no reason, and this is all you can talk about. You deserve what you will get in the next two years. Just look MRAPS in you state, chemtrails data, LITMUS test, loss of social security, Medicare, Medicade, food stamps, Veterans care, retirements, increase of millions of illegal aliens given amnesty and welfare. Get you faces out of the propaganda on the Television and newspapers. There are no terrorists acts that are not backed up by our government in order to establish NATIONAL EVERGENCY to suspend the Constitution.
If all sins are equal in Christianity, then why did Mr. Robertson go out of his way to list the three groups he obviously thinks are (for him) the most disgusting of all?
*yawn* You'd have to ask him as it's not clear to me...perhaps it related to something he and the author of the article were talking about earlier that wasn't included in the article. You'd have to ask Robertson or the reporter.
It is true that the Bible says no one sin is greater than any other. But, personally, I would have found it much more disagreeable for some woman and my husband to have committed adultery than I would find the shoplifting by a stranger of a small item from a department store. While God may hold all sins to be equal, except for that part about forgiving 70 x 7, I don't think He would be particularly put out if I were to be much more hurt by the first sin than the latter sin in my example. The first would have caused a great deal of travail and chaos in my own life whereas the second would not. Moreover in our human endeavor to mete out justice fitting of the crime, we do not hold all violations to the same punishment. Now having said that, nowhere in the Bible, nor in any other ancient writing I have dug up, have I read any description of human punishment in the afterlife that remotely resembles the various different levels of hell in Durante (Dante) Alighieri's The Inferno. That is a pure fabrication. The Egyptian version of trials of the afterlife were not permanent but were tests the human had to pass to make it to a better place. And I also don't recall any Biblical account of purgatory. Not saying it isn't there somewhere, but I suspect that is more an invention of men, other than Jesus, to give some explanation of what happens to innocents who have not had the opportunity to repent of their original sin.
We react to sins as humans. God reacts to sins as God. That is the basic difference.
"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher
In the case of the Ducks guy (I don't watch the show) he absolutely got a raw deal. But then, as a Fox News person said last night (and I said in other posts about this issue previously) he signed a contract to get the show. If he then did or said something that borke the contract, then whatever punishment was instituted in the contract was appropriate.
Absent a contract, he would have been free to say whatever he likes. Of course, no one would then know who he is. So the matter's not a straight foward 1st Amendment issue. It's a contract law issue if anything.
Motherwolf here. I cannot believe you people are talking about tv shows and crap. You better wake up. You have chemtrails dumping poison on you, GMO poisoning you, military vehicles building up in your state, military ready to Kill on Command. What the hell is wrong with you?
