What makes it their cause d'Celebre as you say? Are you also saying that Catholics are turning against the teaching of the Bible and are openly accepting Homosexuality as not being a sin?

 

I get it that you despise all organized religion, you've made that abundantly clear on several threads but what should people that follow the teachings of the Bible do? Ignore it, only accept the PC parts, have lack of conviction to their faith and hide and run when asked what their beliefs are?

 

All I've seen anyone do is point out that Homosexuality is a Sin according to the teaching of the Bible. Very few narrow minded people of many Religions condemn the Sinner, but MANY MANY Protestant Pastors, the Catholic Church and even Phil Robertson take the same position that Jesus did, of Don't hate the Sinner, hate the Sin.

 

Jim's quote boils down to this: why is homosexuality seemingly the most frequently shamed sin amongst certain sects of Christians? Jesus was explicit about loving others, forgiveness, and chastised those who judged others. Why are these not the most closely associated beliefs of Christians? Furthermore, Jesus was very explicit about the evils of idolatry and greed, yet there is nary a controversy about these in the public sphere.

 

We often have lengthy threads about homosexuality, but seldom, if ever, other so called sins. Where is the incessant rebuke of these other sinners? Did Jesus call upon his followers to love or to judge?

 

I say this because I wonder how much of the rebuke of homosexuality is a product of our society rather than the literal teachings of Christ. It wasn't so long ago that many other things we now consider unacceptable were justified in the name of the Christian religion - slavery, for instance. How much of these responses are guided by the teachings of the religion or are justified by society through religion?

^ agree!

 

As I told people, read up a bit on Judges 16. Ezekiel, specifically 16:49. As well as Luke 10:10. Notice something missing? Hmmm! And when one quotes Lev I don't pay attention, very FEW people follow everything I'm lev.

 

It's idd that the other Robertson's are not sticking up for Phil, but say he loves everyone, which I believe 100%!

 

Phil is hardly on the show and for me he doesn't add much, but if Si would not be on anymore I think the show would suffer a lot!

 

Those complaining about free speech, what are your views on Rev Phelps and his Westboro church? I strongly believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be protected under "free speech".

^ agree!

 

As I told people, read up a bit on Judges 16. Ezekiel, specifically 16:49. As well as Luke 10:10. Notice something missing? Hmmm! And when one quotes Lev I don't pay attention, very FEW people follow everything I'm lev.

 

It's idd that the other Robertson's are not sticking up for Phil, but say he loves everyone, which I believe 100%!

 

Phil is hardly on the show and for me he doesn't add much, but if Si would not be on anymore I think the show would suffer a lot!

 

Those complaining about free speech, what are your views on Rev Phelps and his Westboro church? I strongly believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be protected under "free speech".

 

How can you say the other Robertsons aren't sticking up for Phil? Haven't you read their press release yesterday?

Jim's quote boils down to this: why is homosexuality seemingly the most frequently shamed sin amongst certain sects of Christians? Jesus was explicit about loving others, forgiveness, and chastised those who judged others. Why are these not the most closely associated beliefs of Christians? Furthermore, Jesus was very explicit about the evils of idolatry and greed, yet there is nary a controversy about these in the public sphere.

 

We often have lengthy threads about homosexuality, but seldom, if ever, other so called sins. Where is the incessant rebuke of these other sinners? Did Jesus call upon his followers to love or to judge?

 

I say this because I wonder how much of the rebuke of homosexuality is a product of our society rather than the literal teachings of Christ. It wasn't so long ago that many other things we now consider unacceptable were justified in the name of the Christian religion - slavery, for instance. How much of these responses are guided by the teachings of the religion or are justified by society through religion?

 

 

Excellent post. Excellent, excellent post.

Jim's quote boils down to this: why is homosexuality seemingly the most frequently shamed sin amongst certain sects of Christians? Jesus was explicit about loving others, forgiveness, and chastised those who judged others. Why are these not the most closely associated beliefs of Christians? Furthermore, Jesus was very explicit about the evils of idolatry and greed, yet there is nary a controversy about these in the public sphere.

 

We often have lengthy threads about homosexuality, but seldom, if ever, other so called sins. Where is the incessant rebuke of these other sinners? Did Jesus call upon his followers to love or to judge?

 

I say this because I wonder how much of the rebuke of homosexuality is a product of our society rather than the literal teachings of Christ. It wasn't so long ago that many other things we now consider unacceptable were justified in the name of the Christian religion - slavery, for instance. How much of these responses are guided by the teachings of the religion or are justified by society through religion?

 

Excellent post! If you look at the seven deadly sins, most of us are guilty of a few, if not most.

 

Jim's quote boils down to this: why is homosexuality seemingly the most frequently shamed sin amongst certain sects of Christians? Jesus was explicit about loving others, forgiveness, and chastised those who judged others. Why are these not the most closely associated beliefs of Christians? Furthermore, Jesus was very explicit about the evils of idolatry and greed, yet there is nary a controversy about these in the public sphere.

 

We often have lengthy threads about homosexuality, but seldom, if ever, other so called sins. Where is the incessant rebuke of these other sinners? Did Jesus call upon his followers to love or to judge?

 

I say this because I wonder how much of the rebuke of homosexuality is a product of our society rather than the literal teachings of Christ. It wasn't so long ago that many other things we now consider unacceptable were justified in the name of the Christian religion - slavery, for instance. How much of these responses are guided by the teachings of the religion or are justified by society through religion?

 

I agree with everything you say. For most of us, greed (for instance), is societally accepted. We applaud and admire people who amass great fortunes. We feel those people did something worthy and have been rewarded. We feel strongly that what one does with ones fortune is ones own choice.

 

Sloth, as another example, is something that, while most of us frown upon, is at least accepted as a personal choice. Both of these are sins of people "like us". We understand them and can rationalize their acceptability.

 

Homosexuality is something many do not understand. "Those people" aren't like us. Their sexuality is repugnant to many.

 

I will say, I do feel that abortion is equally discussed, and rightfully so. But murder of another already born has varying degrees of outrage, depending upon the perception one has of the victim. We seek to find a reason that one "deserved" to be murdered (lifestyle for instance). Whereas I feel the Bible clearly defines murder as a sin...no matter what.

 

Society....we are great at rationalization and full of conundrums.

So here's the quote from 2010 that catches my attention and changes the game a little bit. His post-GQ remarks and these remarks don't equate.

 

 

“Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” Robertson said in the 2010 speech. “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. That’s what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.”

 

Read more: Phil Robertson Video On Gays - Business Insider

I agree with everything you say. For most of us, greed (for instance), is societally encouraged. We applaud and admire people who amass great fortunes. We feel those people did something worthy and have been rewarded. We feel strongly that what one does with ones fortune is ones own choice.

 

Sloth, as another example, is something that, while most of us frown upon, is at least accepted as a personal choice. Both of these are sins of people "like us". We understand them and can rationalize their acceptability.

 

Homosexuality is something many do not understand. "Those people" aren't like us. Their sexuality is repugnant to many.

 

I will say, I do feel that abortion is equally discussed, and rightfully so. But murder of another already born has varying degrees of outrage, depending upon the perception one has of the victim. We seek to find a reason that one "deserved" to be murdered (lifestyle for instance). Whereas I feel the Bible clearly defines murder as a sin...no matter what.

 

Society....we are great at rationalization and full of conundrums.

 

Fixed that for you.

Jim's quote boils down to this: why is homosexuality seemingly the most frequently shamed sin amongst certain sects of Christians? Jesus was explicit about loving others, forgiveness, and chastised those who judged others. Why are these not the most closely associated beliefs of Christians? Furthermore, Jesus was very explicit about the evils of idolatry and greed, yet there is nary a controversy about these in the public sphere.

 

We often have lengthy threads about homosexuality, but seldom, if ever, other so called sins. Where is the incessant rebuke of these other sinners? Did Jesus call upon his followers to love or to judge?

 

I say this because I wonder how much of the rebuke of homosexuality is a product of our society rather than the literal teachings of Christ. It wasn't so long ago that many other things we now consider unacceptable were justified in the name of the Christian religion - slavery, for instance. How much of these responses are guided by the teachings of the religion or are justified by society through religion?

 

How many of those threads were started by someone denouncing Homosexuality? Every thread that I can remember (and I probably missed some) was started by someone not denouncing Homosexuality but promoting acceptance in some way...which is fine. But I honestly can't remember a poster starting a thread denouncing it.

 

I agree that Jesus said to love one another and that it was not ours to judge.

Reading through all of this is a job in and of it's self. Some say don't judge, but they're doing just that. Some say don't stifle someone's constitutional rights, but they don't want a company to exercise theirs.

 

For me, it comes down to it's a reality show, sometimes reality is more than some can handle. I'm on neither side in this argument, I think both parties had the right to say or do what they wanted to. Now we'll see which side get's hit in the wallet more, and after all, with TV, since it's a business, dollar signs trump all even though it may be at their expense but we'll have to see.

Edited December 21, 201312 yr by Run To State
Clyde was correct, so I changed it.

Reading through all of this is a job in and of it's self. Some say don't judge, but they're doing just that. Some say don't stifle someone's constitutional rights, but they don't want a company to exercise theirs.

 

For me, it comes down to it's a reality show, sometimes reality is more than some can handle. I'm on neither side in this argument, I think both parties had the right to say or do what they wanted to. Now we'll see which side get's hit in the wallet more, and after all, with TV it's the dollar signs that seem to trump all, sadly.

 

Why "sadly?" It's a business. They employ people and don't want to lose revenue. Is their bet right? Who knows but I don't have a problem with their decision. As I said, if they thought it would GAIN viewers they would be promoting the GQ interview.

Why "sadly?" It's a business. They employ people and don't want to lose revenue. Is their bet right? Who knows but I don't have a problem with their decision. As I said, if they thought it would GAIN viewers they would be promoting the GQ interview.

I'm not only speaking about A&E, I mean people in general, but your point is well taken and perhaps I shouldn't have said that.

I don't have a problem with their decision either. I think they had every right to do what they did. I think the Robertson family will likely be on a different station and they have every right to do that as well.

Why "sadly?"

Thought about it and you're correct. I edited it.

Fair.

 

However, these comments are much worse.

 

I watched the video that you provided. :eek:

 

I sorta feel that there's a huge difference in freely living one's life along with a "live and let live" attitude vs. ... living one's life where a great portion of living that life includes judging and scorning the lives of others because others are not living the same life they are, while having a self-certainty that theirs in the ONLY way life should be lived, especially while spinning their words in a subjective exaggeratory fashion to make one's audience believe and support their thoughts that are coming from a skewed and lopsided ill-informed position, all the while corroborating their justification of delivering their views by sounding as if it is their called duty to do so, and by pointing to dogma that, in their interpretation, seemingly supports their calling and duty to do so.

 

In a bit of irony, it's sorta difficult to express the comparison portion of my last paragraph without sounding judgmental myself, but those who behave that way stick their necks out to judge others, and draw attention to themselves begging for various responses to their strong and narrow opinions, and this is an expression of my reaction.

 

We're all susceptible to forming opinions towards other's "in your face" opinions especially when those opinions are an attempt to sway others to dislike you, and put you in a certain box with a broad stroke of the brush to make you out to be horrible social misfit that's worthy of such judgement and ridicule.

 

Even if he were condemning others in a completely different topic that didn't hit home with me personally, I'd still find it to be self-righteous, unattractive, and bold.

 

So in these type peoples' minds, all others should drop their way of living and seeing life, and promptly jump over to their way of living and seeing life, which includes being self-righteous and harshly judgmental and scorning of others.

 

It's not exactly a pretty and attractive way to be, from my perspective, so although I'm certainly capable of having opinions, don't know that I could allow myself to become that bold while following his lead to have, again from my perspective, such a terribly unattractive behavior.

 

There's really nothing about the way he is that makes me anxious to become like him.

 

If in expressing my opinions about those who outwardly express their opinions about others makes me sound guilty somehow of the very same thing, I admit that I'm at a loss of how to do so without sounding judgmental myself. I suppose the only other alternative is to not to say anything at all.

 

... and we all know that it's not in my nature to do that... :lol:

 

Hopefully somehow my points are being made here without it sounding like I'm just as self-righteous, harsh, condemning, stifling, confining, misguided, and bold as those that I am opining about.

 

I also wish that somehow I could develop the art of expressing myself in a significantly less amount of words, and feel as if I got my point across in doing so.

I watched the video that you provided. :eek:

 

I sorta feel that there's a huge difference in freely living one's life along with a "live and let live" attitude vs. ... living one's life where a great portion of living that life includes judging and scorning the lives of others because others are not living the same life they are, while having a self-certainty that theirs in the ONLY way life should be lived, especially while spinning their words in a subjective exaggeratory fashion to make one's audience believe and support their thoughts that are coming from a skewed and lopsided ill-informed position, all the while corroborating their justification of delivering their views by sounding as if it is their called duty to do so, and by pointing to dogma that, in their interpretation, seemingly supports their calling and duty to do so.

 

In a bit of irony, it's sorta difficult to express the comparison portion of my last paragraph without sounding judgmental myself, but those who behave that way stick their necks out to judge others, and draw attention to themselves begging for various responses to their strong and narrow opinions, and this is an expression of my reaction.

 

We're all susceptible to forming opinions towards other's "in your face" opinions especially when those opinions are an attempt to sway others to dislike you, and put you in a certain box with a broad stroke of the brush to make you out to be horrible social misfit that's worthy of such judgement and ridicule.

 

Even if he were condemning others in a completely different topic that didn't hit home with me personally, I'd still find it to be self-righteous, unattractive, and bold.

 

So in these type peoples' minds, all others should drop their way of living and seeing life, and promptly jump over to their way of living and seeing life, which includes being self-righteous and harshly judgmental and scorning of others.

 

It's not exactly a pretty and attractive way to be, from my perspective, so although I'm certainly capable of having opinions, don't know that I could allow myself to become that bold while following his lead to have, again from my perspective, such a terribly unattractive behavior.

 

There's really nothing about the way he is that makes me anxious to become like him.

 

If in expressing my opinions about those who outwardly express their opinions about others makes me sound guilty somehow of the very same thing, I admit that I'm at a loss of how to do so without sounding judgmental myself. I suppose the only other alternative is to not to say anything at all.

 

... and we all know that it's not in my nature to do that... :lol:

 

Hopefully somehow my points are being made here without it sounding like I'm just as self-righteous, harsh, condemning, stifling, confining, misguided, and bold as those that I am opining about.

 

I also wish that somehow I could develop the art of expressing myself in a significantly less amount of words, and feel as if I got my point across in doing so.

 

In discussing with a friend my lack of the ability to be brief, his suggestion was that I could have simply stated in response to Duck Dynasty guy:

 

What a load of :poop:

 

I suppose he has a point.