Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Vince G, CSN MFT on December 27, 2013, 03:07:18 PM
-
;D
-
Good for him. Manufactured controversy.
-
Polarization always works to attract both sides to an issue (and in this case bring higher ratings/profits).
-
now we can get more pearls of wisdom like these:
Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus.
"All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people.
Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/when-you-defend-phil-robertson-heres-what-youre-really-defending-2013-12#ixzz2oj6FVlTg
-
No way A&E was about to lose that cash-cow.
-
No way A&E was about to lose that cash-cow.
yep
-
now we can get more pearls of wisdom like these:
Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus.
"All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people.
Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/when-you-defend-phil-robertson-heres-what-youre-really-defending-2013-12#ixzz2oj6FVlTg
Thanks for that Mr. Protector of Civil rights as the entire country especially blacks and the middleclass gets rammed up the a**...hahaha. Do you even think before you speak? Sharpton, jackson, Farrakan.......the entire line up at MSNBC....lol.
-
Thanks for that Mr. Protector of Civil rights as the entire country especially blacks and the middleclass gets rammed up the a**...hahaha. Do you even think before you speak? Sharpton, jackson, Farrakan.......the entire line up at MSNBC....lol.
my post contains words right from the dipshits mouth
anyone is free to choose what they think about them
Clearly you must agree witht the brilliant conclusion that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because "uh, Shintos" and "no jesus"
and we already know you agree that gays are "full of murder"
everyone knows that so what's the big deal
that's just good old backwoods Louisiana common sense right there
-
Polarization always works to attract both sides to an issue (and in this case bring higher ratings/profits).
...and makes improper conduct by politicians less likely to be stopped.
-
No way A&E was about to lose that cash-cow.
You would think they would have known what a big mistake they were making, so why in the world did they do it?
The pressure to be politically correct must be pretty intense if they were willing to fire him.
-
You would think they would have known what a big mistake they were making, so why in the world did they do it?
The pressure to be politically correct must be pretty intense if they were willing to fire him.
No way they were firing him. They were feeding two birds with one worm.
They were getting boffo ratings for their shows, putting the network in front of those who may not have heard of it before, covering their asses politically... all the while knowing they already had most of the season already in the can. They played it superbly!
And during the manufactured controversy, the NSA spy scandal which was threatening to spill over, Clapper was on the ropes... but now that a Federal Judge has put the Constitution through a meat grinder and declared the bulk gathering of information 'legal', the Duck Dynasty controversy goes away as quickly as it started.
The next tit for tat distraction could be Putin inviting Robertson to the Winter Games. American public punked again.
-
No way they were firing him. They were feeding two birds with one worm.
They were getting boffo ratings for their shows, putting the network in front of those who may not have heard of it before, covering their asses politically...
I suspected this to be a contrived PR stunt early on. And, whether it is ever confirmed or not, I will always suspect the possibility.
Regardless of if A&E is working an angle, or if it is legit, they have certainly considered the potential backlash of losing the show versus continuing it. Their conclusion is obvious.
-
Thank God!!!...Real TV...Since Sarah Palin's show was cancelled,..............I was lost!!!! ;D
-
fags sent running for the hills y strong normal public
now to boot dems
cancel obumacare
and lower gov spending
usa can rise again!!!
-
I suspected this to be a contrived PR stunt early on. And, whether it is ever confirmed or not, I will always suspect the possibility.
Regardless of if A&E is working an angle, or if it is legit, they have certainly considered the potential backlash of losing the show versus continuing it. Their conclusion is obvious.
I don't think this was contrived or a PR stunt at all
I believe that the execs at A&E would have much preferred to have had that interview sanitized
they had to take some action because his comments were both ignorant and offensive but I'm not surprised that they didn't shit can the show. It's obviously a big money maker for them and they couldn't go on without him
-
fags sent running for the hills y strong normal public
now to boot dems
cancel obumacare
and lower gov spending
usa can rise again!!!
How about the Senators & Congressman....They have goldcards as far as healthcare, and their families too..... Notice how they don't discuss their raises like they used to do. We could lower government spending, by cutting their salaries..... Just to put things in perspective....both parties suck!!!! :'(
-
now we can get more pearls of wisdom like these:
Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus.
"All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people.
Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/when-you-defend-phil-robertson-heres-what-youre-really-defending-2013-12#ixzz2oj6FVlTg
You seem like a real loser.
-
You seem like a real loser.
are you aware that that virtually the entire post are the words of Phil Robertson and not me?
do you have some problem with what he said ?
-
my post contains words right from the dipshits mouth
anyone is free to choose what they think about them
Clearly you must agree witht the brilliant conclusion that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because "uh, Shintos" and "no jesus"
and we already know you agree that gays are "full of murder"
everyone knows that so what's the big deal
that's just good old backwoods Louisiana common sense right there
actually all the bolded sections are straight from the mouth of a libtard moron just like yourself who FEEEELLLLLSSS thats what robertson is saying....
-
actually all the bolded sections are straight from the mouth of a libtard moron just like yourself who FEEEELLLLLSSS thats what robertson is saying....
They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
-
are you aware that that virtually the entire post are the words of Phil Robertson and not me?
do you have some problem with what he said ?
Yes I know it was his words. It is you attempt to make him out to be bad which is pathetic.
-
Yes I know it was his words. It is you attempt to make him out to be bad which is pathetic.
you believe that his own words make him look bad?
-
you believe that his own words make him look bad?
Unlike hateful liberals, some of us have as much tolerance for an individuals long held religious beliefs as we do for their sexual orientation.
-
Polarization always works to attract both sides to an issue (and in this case bring higher ratings/profits).
100% Agreed.
-
Unlike hateful liberals, some of us have as much tolerance for an individuals long held religious beliefs as we do for their sexual orientation.
Exactly, but many GAYS can't seem to see beyond their lovers cock.. anything else is irrelevant.
-
WHUUOOAAAAAaaaaat? ???
First, Zimmerman is found not guilty, and now this? WTF?
My heart goes out to you, liberals. Don't do it. Please don't! Tomorrow might be a better day. Just take your meds and go see your shrink. :'(
-
I apologize one of the many bolded parts were from him, the rest from a libtard moron like yourself who think that anyone against homosexuality is a homophobic hate monger...::)
-
Unlike hateful liberals, some of us have as much tolerance for an individuals long held religious beliefs as we do for their sexual orientation.
yes, I can see that classic christian TOLERANCE is Robertson's statements
Tolerance is the first thing that came to my mind when I read them
I can see you and I think alike on this issue
-
I apologize one of the many bolded parts were from him, the rest from a libtard moron like yourself who think that anyone against homosexuality is a homophobic hate monger...::)
you're so right
I should try to be less hateful ....like good old Phil
maybe if I could just find Jesus I could learn to be less hateful and more tolerant just like Phil
-
now we can get more pearls of wisdom like these:
Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus.
"All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people.
Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/when-you-defend-phil-robertson-heres-what-youre-really-defending-2013-12#ixzz2oj6FVlTg
Straw Man, the author of that article is being dishonest, and so are you.
The bold letters are not Robertson's words, but that of the author's. That's the author's opinion of what Robertson says, and what Robertson says doesn't support the bold letters.
In the first two, Robertson is simply giving his opinion. About African Americans, he is simply sharing his personal experience, what he saw and didn't see, and what he heard and didn't hear. Robertson didn't say that he hates gays. He did say however that he loves all people, including gays. Just because he believes the Bible when it says that homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't mean that he hates gays and it's not what he said.
The last part are not Robertson's words. Those are direct quotes from the Bible.
Liberals keep twisting Robertson's words and putting words in his mouth that he never said. It is perfectly normal for someone who believes that the Bible is the word of God to believe that God disapproves of the homosexual life style.
-
Straw Man, the author of that article is being dishonest, and so are you.
The bold letters are not Robertson's words, but that of the author's. That's the author's opinion of what Robertson says, and what Robertson says doesn't support the bold letters.
In the first two, Robertson is simply giving his opinion. About African Americans, he is simply sharing his personal experience, what he saw and didn't see, and what he heard and didn't hear. Robertson didn't say that he hates gays. He did say however that he loves all people, including gays. Just because he believes the Bible when it says that homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't mean that he dates gays and it's not what he said.
The last part are not Robertson's words. Those are direct quotes from the Bible.
Liberals keep twisting Robertson's words and putting words in his mouth that he never said. It is perfectly normal for someone who believes that the Bible is the word of God to believe that God disapproves of the homosexual life style.
no shit dumbass
that's why Robertsons words are in quotation marks
The first two of Robertsons beliefs are moronic (assuming one actually knows even a little bit about history)
His last statement is just pure white hot HATRED
-
no shit dumbass
What's with the hate and name calling? You are melting all over the place.
-
What's with the hate and name calling? You are melting all over the place.
sorry, you're right
I should have said you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." That you are "insolent, arrogant" and a "God-hater".
I should have also mentioned that you are are "heartless" and "faithless" and "senseless" and "ruthless" and that you "invent ways of doing evil."
Thanks for your tolerance and understanding
-
sorry, you're right
I should have said you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." That you are "insolent, arrogant" and a "God-hater".
I should have also mentioned that you are are "heartless" and "faithless" and "senseless" and "ruthless" and that you "invent ways of doing evil."
Thanks for your tolerance and understanding
Oh, boy!
-
Oh, boy!
come on loco
you know I'm not a christian so I don't have the benefit of having the tolerance and compassion of you and Phil so when I use Phils own words it might not sound as tolerant and full of the love of Jesus as it would when the very same words are said by such a devout christian
-
come on loco
you know I'm not a christian so I don't have the benefit of having the tolerance and compassion of you and Phil so when I use Phils own words it might not sound as tolerant and full of the love of Jesus as it would when the very same words are said by such a devout christian
Those are quotes form the Bible, not his words. By the way, Gays were calling for his suspension from the show because of what he said in a GQ interview, right? Why are you liberals now bringing up stuff he said in 2010? Why didn't you bring it up then? Because twisting his words and lying about what he said in GQ didn't work, did it? Typical lying liberals.
-
Those are quotes form the Bible, not his words. By the way, Gays were calling for his suspension from the show because of what he said in a GQ interview, right? Why are you liberals now bringing up stuff he said in 2010? Why didn't you bring it up then? Because twisting his words and laying about what he said in GQ didn't work, did it? Typical lying liberals.
I'm obviously not as familiar with the bible and you and phil
can you tell me the exact sections of the bible that those quotes are from
-
I'm obviously not as familiar with the bible and you and phil
can you tell me the exact sections of the bible that those quotes are from
Not as familiar with the Bible as me and Phil? Anyone who knows anything about the Bible, theist or atheist, gay or straight, knows that these aren't his own words, but instead quotes from the Bible. So you jumped the gun and believed the dishonest author of this article and posted it here without first getting your facts straight.
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
-
Not as familiar with the Bible as me and Phil? Anyone who knows anything about the Bible, theist or atheist, gay or straight, knows that these aren't his own words, but instead quotes from the Bible. So you jumped the gun and believed the dishonest author of this article and posted it here without first getting your facts straight.
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Sounds like modern Western Society with a little help from Madison Avenue, and those who do "God's work"
-
Not as familiar with the Bible as me and Phil? Anyone who knows anything about the Bible, theist or atheist, gay or straight, knows that these aren't his own words, but instead quotes from the Bible. So you jumped the gun and believed the author of the article and posted it here without first getting your facts straight.
Romans 1:25-30
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
I knew you would be able to find it (hint - I've already read what Phil was supposedly "quoting")
As I'm sure you know, this is just your and Phils interpretation
you can find other who interpret it differently. I would post them all here but I doubt it would make any difference so let's cut to the main point
If I understand you (and other correctly) we should be tolerant of Phils statements (and by extension the bible) even if those statements are full of hatred and intolerance.
Is that your basic premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
-
I knew you would be able to find it (hint - I've already read what Phil was supposedly "quoting")
As I'm sure you know, this is just your and Phils interpretation
you can find other who interpret it differently. I would post them all here but I doubt it would make any difference so let's cut to the main point
If I understand you (and other correctly) we should be tolerant of Phils statements (and by extension the bible) even if those statements are full of hatred and intolerance.
Is that your basic premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
Stop twisting and spinning. You said those were his own words and full of hate.
-
Stop twisting and spinning. You said those were his own words and full of hate.
those quotes were his own words
they were not the exact quotes from the bible
now answer my question and if you really want to we can even talk about what others have interpreted that passage and the others that followed it (hint hint) to be what Paul was really saying.
-
those quotes were his own words
they were not the exact quotes from the bible
now answer my question and if you really want to we can even talk about what others have interpreted that passage and the others that followed it (hint hint) to be what Paul was really saying.
You thought those were his own words. You had no idea they are quotes from the Bible. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and concluded you were misled by the dishonest author. But now I see you are being dishonest too.
This guy from Duck Dynasty never said he hates gays. On the contrary, he said that he loves all people including gays.
Gays were calling for his suspension from the show because of what he said in a GQ interview, right? Why are you liberals now bringing up stuff he said in 2010? Why didn't you bring it up then? Because twisting his words and lying about what he said in GQ didn't work, did it?
Stop lying, spinning and twisting. The guy was suspended and reinstated. Give it up and stop melting down.
-
You thought those were his own words. You had now idea they are quotes from the Bible. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and concluded you were misled by the dishonest author. But now I see you are being dishonest too.
This guy from Duck Dynasty never said he hates gays. On the contrary, he said that he loves all people including gays.
Gays were calling for his suspension from the show because of what he said in a GQ interview, right? Why are you liberals now bringing up stuff he said in 2010? Why didn't you bring it up then? Because twisting his words and lying about what he said in GQ didn't work, did it?
Stop lying, spinning and twisting. The guys was suspended and reinstated. Give it up and stop melting down.
again, I knew what Phil was referring to (you don't think this shit has been talked about already) and of course those are his own words which is why I asked you to show provide me the bible "quote" to show in fact it was his "interpretation" of a passage in the bible (and in fact it's a classic misunderstanding of what Paul was saying but that's very common among many christians, especially the dumbest of your crowd)
now why are you dodging my simple question
I'll repeat it for you again
If I understand you (and other correctly) we should be tolerant of Phils statements (and by extension the bible) even if those statements are full of hatred and intolerance.
Is that your basic premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
-
you're so right
I should try to be less hateful ....like good old Phil
maybe if I could just find Jesus I could learn to be less hateful and more tolerant just like Phil
where did he say he hated them? as a matter of fact he has said quite the opposite, but you and your libtard ilk will continue to ignore that and push your idiocy
-
where did he say he hated them? as a matter of fact he has said quite the opposite, but you and your libtard ilk will continue to ignore that and push your idiocy
yeah, he just called them "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." And that they were "heartless" and "faithless" and "senseless" and "ruthless "God-haters".
I totally see your point
If I said that about christians or Republicans you would take that as a sign that I liked them
-
again, I knew what Phil was referring to (you don't think this shit has been talked about already) and of course those are his own words which is why I asked you to show provide me the bible "quote" to show in fact it was his "interpretation" of a passage in the bible (and in fact it's a classic misunderstanding of what Paul was saying but that's very common among many christians, especially the dumbest of your crowd)
now why are you dodging my simple question
I'll repeat it for you again
If I understand you (and other correctly) we should be tolerant of Phils statements (and by extension the bible) even if those statements are full of hatred and intolerance.
Is that your basic premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
What's with the name calling? You really believe I'm dumb? Why? Wait, now you are saying those are his own words again? Look, you liberals lied and twisted his words to get your way and it didn't work. Stop the twisting and spinning. He never said that he hates gays.
And what would you know about what the apostle Paul meant when you thought those were Phil's own words to begin with?
-
What's with the name calling? You really believe I'm dumb? Why? Wait, now you are saying those are his own words again? Look, you liberals lied and twisted his words to get your way and it didn't work. Stop the twisting and spinning. He never said that he hates gays.
And what would you know about what the apostle Paul meant when you thought those were Phil's own words to begin with?
those are his own words and also his own interpretation (same goes for the other quotes by Phil which is why they are in quotation marks)
why do you keep dodging my question
-
yeah, he just called them "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." And that they were "heartless" and "faithless" and "senseless" and "ruthless "God-haters".
I totally see your point
If I said that about christians or Republicans you would take that as a sign that I liked them
so again you ignore all his other comments and focus on that?
I agree you should be more like phil robertson but then that would require you to be tolerant of others beliefs which we know libtards dont do.
-
those are his own words and also his own interpretation (same goes for the other quotes by Phil which is why they are in quotation marks)
why do you keep dodging my question
Why are you dodging my all my questions? What are Phl's words? What is his interpretation? Why do you allow this Duck Dynasty guy to own your mind?
-
so again you ignore all his other comments and focus on that?
I agree you should be more like phil robertson but then that would require you to be tolerant of others beliefs which we know libtards dont do.
so you're suggesting what comments I should ignore and what comments I shouldn't ignore
dude just because I truly believe that you are a full of murder, envy, strife, hatred and that you are heartless and faithless and senseless and a ruthless God-hater doesn't mean that I don't also think you're a great guy
please don't tell me you object to me calling you any of those things at any time ever again
I know you are a truly tolerant person and respect and tolerate my beliefs
you've shown me that tolerance so many times you murdering heartless, ruthless God hater
love ya
-
Why are you dodging my all my questions? What are Phl's words? What is his interpretation? Why do you allow this Duck Dynasty guy to own your mind?
why are you dodging mine
I asked you a few simple questions yet you refuse to answer and instead just ask me more questions
you answer mine first and then I will answer yours
-
why are you dodging mine
I asked you a few simple questions yet you refuse to answer and instead just ask me more questions
you answer mine first and then I will answer yours
What is this "simple" question?
-
What is this "simple" question?
WTF man ?
I aksed you twice
here is the third time
I knew you would be able to find it (hint - I've already read what Phil was supposedly "quoting")
As I'm sure you know, this is just your and Phils interpretation
you can find other who interpret it differently. I would post them all here but I doubt it would make any difference so let's cut to the main point
If I understand you (and other correctly) we should be tolerant of Phils statements (and by extension the bible) even if those statements are full of hatred and intolerance.
Is that your basic premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
-
WTF man ?
I aksed you twice
here is the third time
And what is his statement?
-
And what is his statement?
wtf man
answer the question or don't answer it
I don't really give a shit any more
-
wtf man
answer the question or don't answer it
I don't really give a shit any more
I want to answer your question. I'm trying. What is his statement?
-
I want to answer your question. I'm trying. What is his statement?
you truly have no idea which of his statements I'm referring to
you have absolutely no idea?
really?
-
Straw, some people see various labels that people attach to themselves as "Get out of Jail FREE" cards.
They are completely blind to it. That get out of jail free card, completely obliterates, conceals, and covers up all sin.
-
Okay, Judi Embden
what is your purpose in doing this?
-
Straw, some people see various labels that people attach to themselves as "Get out of Jail FREE" cards.
They are completely blind to it. That get out of jail free card, completely obliterates, conceals, and covers up all sin.
he's not blind
willfully wearing a blindfold is not being blind
-
he's not blind
willfully wearing a blindfold is not being blind
I could say the same about you, posting dishonest articles from dishonest authors.
-
he's not blind
willfully wearing a blindfold is not being blind
You're right, I was being too generous. I am done being generous with diplomacy.
-
You're right, I was being too generous. I am done being generous with diplomacy.
24KT/JaguarEnterprises, you call this generous? You call this diplomacy?
I FVCKING HATE DELUSIONAL EVANGELICALS >:(
You are fvcking certifiable in your delusion & denial.
It's the goddamn evangelicals who make it a political issue. Get real!!!
I will welcome the day that religion is forced underground!
Any evangelical I off, is gonna be one who trys imposing themself on me. There's a big difference.
It's like someone on here once said "I'll shoot the fvckers if I have to."
-
I could say the same about you, posting dishonest articles from dishonest authors.
what is dishonest about Phil Robertsons own words
you know exactly what "statement" I'm referring to yet you want to play games (I assume it's game and not genuine stupidity)
so that you can avoid answering a simple question. If you want to insist that Phils words are a bible quote then you can refer to my question where I say "and by extension" the bible
Now, if you want to continue to avoid answering the question that is fine but I'm bored with your game (or your ignorance - whichever it is)
-
what is dishonest about Phil Robertsons own words
you know exactly what "statement" I'm referring to yet you want to play games (I assume it's game and not genuine stupidity)
so that you can avoid answering a simple question. If you want to insist that Phils words are a bible quote then you can refer to my question where I say "and by extension" the bible
Now, if you want to continue to avoid answering the question that is fine but I'm bored with your game (or your ignorance - whichever it is)
Still with the name calling? You are really bitter about this Duck Dynasty guy, aren't you?
And stop playing games. We already established in this very thread that those aren't his own words, but instead Bible quotes:
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
-
Still with the name calling? You are really bitter about this Duck Dynasty guy, aren't you?
And stop playing games. We already established in this very thread that those aren't his own words, but instead Bible quotes:
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
and I've already acknowledged that you believe those are not Phils words which is why I reminded you that my question included the statement "and by extension the bible"
now either answer the question or don't but stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about
-
so you're suggesting what comments I should ignore and what comments I shouldn't ignore
dude just because I truly believe that you are a full of murder, envy, strife, hatred and that you are heartless and faithless and senseless and a ruthless God-hater doesn't mean that I don't also think you're a great guy
please don't tell me you object to me calling you any of those things at any time ever again
I know you are a truly tolerant person and respect and tolerate my beliefs
you've shown me that tolerance so many times you murdering heartless, ruthless God hater
love ya
I say take all his comments into account not just the ones that lend themselves to your hypocritical ways...
p.s. I dont care what you call or think of me so go nuts
-
I say take all his comments into account not just the ones that lend themselves to your hypocritical ways...
p.s. I dont care what you call or think of me so go nuts
you clearly only take the comments into account that you choose
isn't that what you are accuse me of doing
you're suggesting I can't express my contempt and disgust for some of his statements because after making such statement he says he really loves gay (i.e you said he didn't hate them and in fact quite the opposite)
I'm the same as Phil
I think you are a full of murder, envy, strife, hatred and that you are heartless and faithless and senseless and a ruthless God-hater doesn't mean that I don't also think you're a great guy
How can anyone be offended by that when I end it by saying you're a great guy
-
and I've already acknowledged that you believe those are not Phils words which is why I reminded you that my question included the statement "and by extension the bible"
now either answer the question or don't but stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about
I believe? I believe those aren't his words? They aren't. It's the Bible. I tried to answer you question, but you wouldn't explain. I don't even know where you are going with this. You can read, can't you?
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
-
I believe? I believe those aren't his words? They aren't. It's the Bible. I tried to answer you question, but you wouldn't explain. I don't even know where you are going with this. You can read, can't you?
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
again, you avoid answering the question even though I've included "and by extension the bible"
I'll rephrase it for you so that you can stop using that excuse
Is it your premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
-
again, you avoid answering the question even though I've included "and by extension the bible"
I'll rephrase it for you so that you can stop using that excuse
Is it your premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
I am not avoiding answering your questions. I'm trying, but you are just playing games. Let's try this gain. You can read, can't you?
Robertson hates gay people.
Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
-
I am not avoiding answering your questions. I'm trying, but you are just playing games. Let's try this gain. You can read, can't you?
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
you don't need to keep posting the same quotes
if you want to talk about what they really mean we can do that but you are in fact (and obviously) avoiding my question
I'll post it again
you don't need to answer but don't post the same bible quotes
Is it your premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
yes or no (and if you want to explain why "yes" or "no" that is fine too
-
you don't need to keep posting the same quotes
if you want to talk about what they really mean we can do that but you are in fact (and obviously) avoiding my question
I'll post it again
you don't need to answer but don't post the same bible quotes
Is it your premise that we should be tolerant of his religious beliefs even if we personally find them hateful, intolerant and stupid?
yes or no (and if you want to explain why "yes" or "no" that is fine too
You don't know what his religions beliefs are or what statements he made. All you have done is choose to allow the media spoon feed you lies about what his religious beliefs are and what statements he made.
So I am trying to answer your question, but you refuse to tell me what his beliefs are or what was his statement. I don't know this guy, don't watch the show, don't care if you tolerate him or not. I have simply followed the story and I can see that what he said has been twisted by liberals to push an agenda and it didn't work.
So, for the sake of discussion, I am more than willing to answer you question, once you tell me what this person's beliefs are and what was his statement.
-
You don't know what his religions beliefs are or what statements he made. All you have done is choose to allow the media spoon feed you lies about what his religious beliefs are and what statements he made.
So I am trying to answer your question, but you refuse to tell me what his beliefs are or what was his statement. I don't know this guy, don't watch the show, don't care if you tolerate him or not. I have simply followed the story and I can see that what he said has been twisted by liberals to push an agenda and it didn't work.
So, for the sake of discussion, I am more than willing to answer you question, once you tell me what this person's beliefs are and what was his statement.
as you have pointed out, his beliefs are contained (somewhat) in the bible phrase which he was paraphrasing and which you have posted numerous times
now answer the question but stop with the feigned ignorance (again, I assume it is feigned)
-
as you have pointed out, his beliefs are contained (somewhat) in the bible phrase which he was paraphrasing and which you have posted numerous times
now answer the question but stop with the feigned ignorance (again, I assume it is feigned)
See, you just keep playing games. He quoted the Bible. What is this religious belief of his or statement he supposedly made that you find stupid, hateful or offensive?
Is it that God is opposed to the homosexual lifestyle? To those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, the answer is yes.
Do you have to agree with that? No.
-
See, you just keep playing games. He quoted the Bible. What is this religious belief of his or statement he supposedly made that you find stupid, hateful or offensive?
Is it that God is opposed to the homosexual lifestyle? To those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, the answer is yes.
Do you have to agree with that? No.
I didn't ask If I had to agree with it
I asked you I had to be tolerant of his beliefs....i.e just because his beliefs are based on his interpretation of the bible does that that make him immune from criticism (and if so I would assume you would apply that same immunity to other peoples interpretation of the bible and also other peoples interpretation of other books which they believe are the word of god)
I hope that's not too complicated a question for you. I don't have time for another 3 pages of you pretending not to understand
-
War on Christmas - over
War on DD = over
too early for the War on Easter.
whew
-
War on Christmas - over
War on DD = over
too early for the War on Easter.
whew
Battle for the Constitution - missed
People were too distracted by Duck Dynasty to realize it was even taking place.
-
Okay, Judi Em...
Whoa, dude...
You know I like you, and I agree with a lot of the points you're making in this thread, but this is NOT cool! I defended 3 the same way when Benny posted his personal info here...before 3 posted it himself. ;D
-
You are really bitter about this Duck Dynasty guy, aren't you?
Straw, I've got to agree, here. I've never understood why people get so excited about what "celebrities" say. Conservatives bitch about Rosie and Sean Penn...libs bitch about Clint Eastwood and Chuck Heston...
FFS, these people play make-believe for a living! And now, folks care about the views of some hillbilly who makes duck calls and happened to luck into a TV deal?
-
Whoa, dude...
You know I like you, and I agree with a lot of the points you're making in this thread, but this is NOT cool! I defended 3 the same way when Benny posted his personal info here...before 3 posted it himself. ;D
Maybe you are right, Montague. Maybe you are right. Maybe I've been too hard on 24KT. Only because you're a cool dude and because you asked, I won't do that again.
No Homo.
24KT should thank you! ;D
-
monty's a good dude, always there with a picture of a fit lady for you when you need it....
-
Oh, baby...I love the class in this thread! You guys are the best!
And, here's a link to a picture of a fit lady for those who wish: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VV8nG-pVzcQ/UKaIKI8zc6I/AAAAAAAACKw/8ZE4hZaSee4/s1600/Nathalia+Melo+-+Fitness+Girl+with+Sexy+Ass.jpg
-
Maybe you are right, Montague. Maybe you are right. Maybe I've been too hard on 24KT. Only because you're a cool dude and because you asked, I won't do that again.
No Homo.
24KT should thank you! ;D
why exactly did you do it in the first place
revealing her name and photo had NOTHING to do with the conversation
As much as I disagree with 333 on almost everything when someone (who shall remain unnamed) PM'd me his personal info and asked me to post it I told him I had no interest in doing so.
It's just a completely dickish move
Isn't there something in that book you believe was written by god about "doing unto others" ?
-
Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States first announced by President Lyndon B. Johnson at Ohio University, then at University of Michigan, and subsequently promoted by him and fellow Democrats in Congress in the 1960s. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
Economist Thomas Sowell argues that the Great Society programs only contributed to the destruction of African American families, saying "the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society#African-American_family_structure
(http://www.tsowell.com/images/tom_4b.jpg)
Economist Thomas Sowell
-
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus.
"All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
BEIJING
Professor Zhao Xiao shuttles between the private sector and officialdom, giving elite management seminars to CEOs and advising government cadres on the economy. "If eating Chinese cuisine will make me stronger, then I'll eat it, and if Western food makes me stronger, then I'll eat that," said Zhao, a 40-year-old Communist Party member and economist.
Zhao's interest in Christianity began when he embarked on a study of how economies in predominantly Christian societies differ from non-Christian ones. He visited South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. To his own surprise, he began advocating that Christianity could offer China a "common moral foundation" capable of reducing corruption, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, promoting philanthropy and even preventing pollution.
In lectures and writings, Zhao now argues that promoting the 10 Commandments would cultivate "a civilization based upon rules." Likewise, providing business owners with "a motivation that transcends profits" might keep them from seeking shortcuts that have fouled China's environment or cheated workers. And encouraging tycoons to donate some of their wealth would develop China's civic institutions, Zhao argues, just as early American Christians founded Harvard and Yale Universities.
When Zhao took his theory public in lectures to political elites, he braced himself for criticism; as a party member, discussing his newfound faith could stymie his career. Instead he was stunned to discover that many people agreed with him.
Jesus in China: Christianity's rapid rise
By Evan Osnos
Tribune correspondent
June 22, 2008
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-06-22/news/0806210659_1_house-churches-christianity-fact-party-members/3
-
Robertson hates gay people.
Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Romans 1:25-31
New International Version (NIV)
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
-
Is that the word of God there? Seems to me that God didn't write the book himself. Nor did he sit down and do an interview or mail in Cliff Notes for it. He outsourced it to scared old men to write about what they THOUGHT God's word was. And then the final edition of that book was heavily edited before publishing by a known pagan leader.
Yeah, sounds like a fairy tale you can really believe in to be fact.
-
Those are quotes form the Bible, not his words. By the way, Gays were calling for his suspension from the show because of what he said in a GQ interview, right? Why are you liberals now bringing up stuff he said in 2010? Why didn't you bring it up then? Because twisting his words and lying about what he said in GQ didn't work, did it? Typical lying liberals.
If we're going to start having people fired for what they said in the pat, kiss Al Sharpton goodbye. Didn't he call someone a "punk f------t" and said that blacks were into math and science before them "Greek homos" were?
-
LOL - glad to see that Loco agrees with Phil that
Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero
if only they "had some Jesus" they never would have done these horrible things
Certainly we can see proof in history that countries that "had some Jesus" never did any horrible atrocities, started wars, etc..
I have to say I LOVE to fucking nonsense that some christians (such as yourself and Phil) believe and I truly would like it to have more exposure in the media so that as many people as possible can see exactly what you believe and see if they agree or if they think it' NUTS
btw - great job dodging the question of why you thought it was necessary and relevant to reveal Jags name and photo in this conversation
On to Phils last belief that gays are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred"
since I know you believe we must respect Phils religious beliefs I'm sure you extend that same respect to other christians who interpret that section of the bible as Pauls admonishment not to judge others. Kind of ironic that you, Phil and no doubt millions of other christians got the exact wrong message. Maybe it's because what you really have in your heart is hatred and you use the bible to support your preconceived hatred
The following is the opinion of another fellow christian and I of course expect that you will extend the same tolerance than you demand that we give to Phil
http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2011/05/21/clobber-passage-romans-1/
Romans 1:18-27 may be the most-used Clobber Passage of all. Virtually all North American gay and lesbian believers, once their orientation is known, have received it in a cut-and-paste email from concerned friends and acquaintances. If you’ve spent much time in the blogs you have probably seen the passage pasted into a thread, as though it actually constituted communication, ministry, witnessing or something.
Evangelicals don’t realize they are using Romans 1 for the exact opposite purpose that Paul wrote it. But they continue this egregious perversion of the text without ceasing. Paul’s intention for writing Romans 1 is easily demonstrated, but I’m sure they will somehow manage to avoid using the passage for the purpose Paul intended.
For the typical conservative minister, the primary use for Romans 1 is to prove that homosexuality is a vile sin, which proves to them that they must under no circumstance tolerate unrepentant gays and lesbians in their churches or, for some, in their families.
In fairness I must acknowledge that some evangelicals do struggle with the position their denominations and congregations expect them to uphold. One example of a conservative denomination beginning to grapple with their addiction to intolerance and judgmentalism is the Church of the Nazarene. While their recently published Pastoral Perspectives on Homosexuality is woefully inadequate, it is a beginning, It is evidence that God is speaking to them, and some number of them are beginning to listen.
Evangelicals use this passage to prove that non-celibate homosexuals are condemned by God and should not be tolerated in the church. Using Romans 1 as a pretext to pronounce God’s condemnation on homosexuals is like using a trowel as though it were an axe. They use the passage to do the exact opposite for which Paul intended it. Quite simply, they completely ignore the immediate context.
Repeat after me: “You’re taking the passage out of context.”
Any summarizing discussion of Romans 1 takes the passage out of context when there is no mention of Romans 2:1-4, which actually continues to verse 11. In Romans 2:1 Paul gives the “therefore” which explains the purpose for everything in the previous chapter. The word “therefore” tells you the reason Paul wrote everything that came before it. Everything leading up to Romans 2:1 is foundational to this main point.
Whereas…Whereas…Whereas…Therefore
Romans 2:1ff is what Paul wanted you to walk away with when you were finished. The first verse of Romans 2 is actually the conclusion of Romans 1.
Paul wrote Romans 1:18–2:1 to urge us to stop judging one another, but we manage to use it as the basis for judging people big time.. Here is Romans 2:1 in three translations:
Therefore, you have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (NIV)
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. (RSV)
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (KJV)
Whereas all human beings are idolaters, and
Whereas [most] human beings are fornicators, and
Whereas [a few] human beings are homosexuals, and
Whereas all human beings have a depraved mind,
Therefore, stop judging one another.
So you see, in context, Paul was telling us that we are without excuse if, for example, we condemn homosexuals. because we are foolish gossips and heartless braggers, which are sins of the depraved, or useless. mind. (Interesting, the Greek word translated with the horrible sounding words ”reprobate” and “depraved” means “useless.”)
Paul did NOT write Romans 1 to prove how wicked gays and lesbians are. He wrote it to urge us all to stop all the judging and condemnation. If you insist on using Romans 1 to prove how evil homosexuals are, then “You are without excuse,” because your judgment is “inexcusable” (KJV). There is no excuse for judging one another. We have been warned.
All of us must stop judging one another. And I really do mean all of us.
Repeat after me, “You’re taking the passage out of context. Paul wrote that to teach us that judging one another is inexcusable–Romans 2:1.”
And if they go off on a tangent to justify their judging, simply repeat:
“That’s an interesting question, but you are taking the passage out of context. Paul wrote that to teach us that judging one another is inexcusable–Romans 2:1.”
“That may be, but you are taking the passage out of context. Paul wrote that to teach us that judging one another is inexcusable–Romans 2:1.”
Repeat as needed. If they remember nothing else you’ve said, they will remember that.
Romans 1 concludes with one of Paul’s famous sin lists. As you read the list, make a mental note of how many may apply to you.
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:28:32)
Romans 2:1 says that the person who judges another person, homosexuals for example, condemns himself because he who judges does the same thing. An evangelical asks, “So how does that work? I have never had sex with a man, but Paul says that I’ve done the same things gays and lesbians have done. What’s with that?”
That is fairly easy to explain. Look at the long list of “sins of the depraved mind.” There’s quite a variety there. I’m guilty of about half of them. I’m sure my friends would say I’m being too hard on myself, but I know my own heart. If I’m going to be brutally honest, I experience at various times 1) greed, 2) envy, 3) strife, 4) deceit, 5) malice, 6) gossip, 7) insolence, 8) arrogant, 9) boastful, 10) inventing evil, 11) foolishness, and 12) heartlessness, not to mention the 13) lust mentioned in Romans 1.
These are all sins of the mind that is reprobate, depraved, and useless. And why exactly do I have a reprobate mind, the mind that makes me a gossip and a fool? Paul says it is because I “did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God.”
Frankly this strikes me as a little odd, since I feel I do retain the knowledge of God, I do acknowledge God. It may mean that I am not consciously aware of God at all times, and those times when I am unaware of God cause me to slip back into my useless mind. There may be other explanations that work for other people.
What I have in common with murderers and liberals, rapists and fundamentalists, clergy and Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a depraved and useless mind.
It’s interesting. I’ve never had anyone say, “Ron, I’m concerned about you. You’re a gossip. Did you know that this is a sin of the depraved mind? Don’t you realize that because you gossip you deserve to die?”
“Ron, don’t you realize that your heartlessness toward that person is the product of a depraved and useless mind, and that because of it you deserve to die?”
“Ron, don’t you realize that the strife you cause is the product of a depraved and uesless mind, and that because of it you deserve to die?”
“Ron, don’t you realize that your foolishness is the product of a depraved and useless mind, and that because of it you deserve to die?”
But we are willing to mete out this logic of condemnation on others.
I know some of this sounds silly, but these sins of the depraved and useless mind really are the basis for Paul’s assertion that “you who pass judgment do the same things.”
And we all take turns forgetting to acknowledge God.
[Note: I know that many of you will find this discussion inadequate because it leave gays and lesbians as "sinners," and this is not acceptable to you. Well, it's not acceptable to me either. I don't believe that same-sex relationships are sinful, any more than heterosexual ones, which is why I am demonstrating the falsity of the Clobber Passages.
I may be wrong, and I'm sure many of you are certain that I am, but my suspicion is that Paul himself did believe that same-sex relationships were wrong, but he also believed that women were to keep silent in the church with their heads covered. If I am wrong, so be it, and please continue to share your understanding of what Paul is talking about with all that difficult language of his in your various venues.
I am also convinced that most gay males do not go through universal descent into sin described in Romans 1. I am persuaded that genetic, prenatal, and environmental factors are at work. But you know what? The why doesn't even matter to me. The overwhelming testimony in the gospels and epistles tell me not to judge and condemn. The topic of this post is to demonstrate the perverse misuse of Romans 1.
I have not analyzed the passage itself, but rather have refuted the use made of the passage by means of it's context.
What I think we agree on is that Christians are to refrain from judging and condemning one another. I am certain, from the passage's subsequent context, that Paul did not want us judging and condemning gays and lesbians.
-
If we're going to start having people fired for what they said in the pat, kiss Al Sharpton goodbye. Didn't he call someone a "punk f------t" and said that blacks were into math and science before them "Greek homos" were?
LOL...yup, gays and liberals wanted Phil fired supposedly because of what he said in a 2013 GQ interview. I asked Straw why bring up stuff he said in 2010 now? Why didn't they bring it up then? Because their spinning, twisting and lying about what Phil said in GQ didn't work and now they are bitter and desperate. ;D
Straw Man won't answer my question, but what can you expect from someone who is paranoid about religion and believes that all devote, religious people are mentally ill. ::)
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
-
LOL...yup, gays and liberals wanted Phil fired supposedly because of what he said in a 2013 GQ interview. I asked Straw why bring up stuff he said in 2010 now? Why didn't they bring it up then? Because their spinning, twisting and lying about what Phil said in GQ didn't work and now they are bitter and desperate. ;D
I don't follow Duck Dynasty or any other TV show (I have never even seen an episode of Breaking Bad) so why the fuck would I know about some statement by this guy from back in 2010 when this Duck nut show wasn't even on the air until 2012
BTW - great job again ignoring my questions to you about why you decided to be a world class dick and post Jags photos and name
Is that What Jesus would have done ?
Why is it that the christian who talk the most can't walk their talk
BTW 2 - My opinion on this idiot Robertson has been that he and others should be allowed to say whatever they want and let people get exposed to their beliefs
the more people who know exactly the nonsense that you and Phil and others like you believe the more you will be exposed for the moronic, bigoted jackasses that you are and the collective intelligence of the species will increase
they both made statements that certain people found to be offensive
you probably have no problem with that the duck dude said an I have no problem with what Bashir said
I think they should both be allowed to say whatever they want and people can either agree with them or not
The problem is that their respective employers had a problem with that they said
My point is that if anyone found Bashir comments offensive and felt he should resign (which he obviously did rather than being fired) then they should have no issue when the same thing happens to someone else who happens to make offensive statements even if they personally don't find them to be offensive
-
Just watched a bit of Duck Dynasty the other day for the very first time.
Not sure why anyone would want to watch that, or 99% of reality shows in the first place.
-
LOL...yup, gays and liberals wanted Phil fired supposedly because of what he said in a 2013 GQ interview. I asked Straw why bring up stuff he said in 2010 now? Why didn't they bring it up then? Because their spinning, twisting and lying about what Phil said in GQ didn't work and now they are bitter and desperate. ;D
Straw Man won't answer my question, but what can you expect from someone who is paranoid about religion and believes that all devote, religious people are mentally ill. ::)
thanks for posting my five year old quote and reminding me of why it's so pointless to attempt to have an adult discussion with a fundie such as yourself
When you actually learn to walk the talk of your messiah then maybe there will be some hope
-
I don't follow Duck Dynasty or any other TV show (I have never even seen an episode of Breaking Bad) so why the fuck would I know about some statement by this guy from back in 2010 when this Duck nut show wasn't even on the air until 2012
BTW - great job again ignoring my questions to you about why you decided to be a world class dick and post Jags photos and name
Is that What Jesus would have done ?
Why is it that the christian who talk the most can't walk their talk
BTW 2 - My opinion on this idiot Robertson has been that he and others should be allowed to say whatever they want and let people get exposed to their beliefs
the more people who know exactly the nonsense that you and Phil and others like you believe the more you will be exposed for the moronic, bigoted jackasses that you are and the collective intelligence of the species will increase
You are dishonest, bitter and desperate. I didn't post anything about Jag that hadn't been posted many times before by other people here. Where do you think I got it from? And why I did it is between me and her. Why are you so hung up on this now? Stop using this to avoid the subject.
When did I say that Phil's or anyone's believes should be tolerated, respected, etc.? I already posted several times in another thread related to this that he is free to express his opinion, that gays and liberals are free to get their panties in a wad about it, that they are free to demand he gets fired for his beliefs and opinions, and that A&E is free to fire him.
In this particular thread, I simply pointed out your dishonesty in spinning, twisting and lying about what he really said in the 2013 GQ interview. Now you are hung up on something else he said in 2010? And now you are being dishonest about my beliefs too, or about what you think my beliefs are anyway. ::)
Why do you even care, since you believe that I am mentally ill anyway?
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
-
You are dishonest, bitter and desperate. I didn't post anything about Jag that hadn't been posted many times before by other people here. Where do you think I got it from? And why I did it is between me and her. Why are you so hung up on this now? Stop using this to avoid the subject.
When did I say that Phil's or anyone's believes should be tolerated, respected, etc.? I already posted several times in another thread related to this that he is free to express his opinion, that gays and liberals are free to get their panties in a wad about it, that they are free to demand he gets fired for his beliefs and opinions, and that A&E is free to fire him.
In this particular thread, I simply pointed out your dishonesty in spinning, twisting and lying about what he really said in the 2013 GQ interview. Now you are hung up on something else he said in 2010? And now you are being dishonest about my beliefs too, or about what you think my beliefs are anyway. ::)
Why do you even care, since you believe that I am mentally ill anyway?
I see
so if other people acted like a dick then that absolves you of acting like a dick
Why again did you choose to do it since it had NOTHING to do with the thread
What was your INTENT?
-
I see
so if other people acted like a dick then that absolves you of acting like a dick
Why again did you choose to do it since it had NOTHING to do with the thread
What was your INTENT?
What in the world are you taking about now?
-
Loco - let's do a quick review of my belief
I believe that Phil (and anyone) should be allowed to say whatever the fuck he wants and the rest of us can choose to agree with him or not agree with him and even mock him for his stupid and bigoted beliefs
the source of his beliefs don't make him immune from criticism, mockage, etc..
Can I make that any easier for you to understand
-
What in the world are you taking about now?
it's a simple question yet why I am surprised that you don't understand
turn the other cheek much?
-
Loco - let's do a quick review of my belief
I believe that Phil (and anyone) should be allowed to say whatever the fuck he wants and the rest of us can choose to agree with him or not agree with him and even mock him for his stupid and bigoted beliefs
the source of his beliefs don't make him immune from criticism, mockage, etc..
Can I make that any easier for you to understand
This I understand, and I agree.
Now, is it okay to spin what he said, twist what he said, lie about what he actually said to sensationalize, exaggerate in order to push an agenda?
-
This I understand, and I agree.
Now, is it okay to spin what he says, twist what he says, lie about what he actually said to sensationalize, exaggerate in order to push an agenda?
you seem to have forgotten that all I did was post his very own words
here is my first post on this thread
what exactly do you think was my spin or exaggeration?
now we can get more pearls of wisdom like these:
Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there.
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus.
"All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people.
Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/when-you-defend-phil-robertson-heres-what-youre-really-defending-2013-12#ixzz2oj6FVlTg
-
Straw Man, is it okay or not to spin what he said, twist what he said, lie about what he actually said to sensationalize, exaggerate in order to push an agenda?
-
Straw Man, is it okay or not to spin what he said, twist what he said, lie about what he actually said to sensationalize, exaggerate in order to push an agenda?
I didn't spin or twist anything he said
I posted his direct quotes
btw - I'd love to know what you think is my agenda (other than what I've stated repeatedly which is to allow people to say whatever they want and let everyone judge for themselves whether it's moronic and bigoted)
-
Straw Man, is it okay or not to spin what he said, twist what he said, lie about what he actually said to sensationalize, exaggerate in order to push an agenda?
It's a very simple question that requires a yes/no answer.
-
Straw Man, is it okay or not to spin what he said, twist what he said, lie about what he actually said to sensationalize, exaggerate in order to push an agenda?
It's a very simple question that requires a yes/no answer.
depends on the situation
give me an example
-
gay mafia had to retreat this time ;D
-
Will television not become boring if everybody who says something nutty is banned?