‘Duck Dynasty': Phil Robertson Anti-Gay Sermon Surfaces (Video)

'Duck  Dynasty': Phil Robertson Anti-Gay Sermon Surfaces (Video)

“They bow down to birds, animals and reptiles, and each other”

A newly surfaced video of “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson preaching against homosexuality arrives at a very inconvenient time for A&E.

Video of a 2010 sermon in which he grouped gays with people full of “murder, envy, strife, hatred” circulated online Friday. A&E suspended Robertson Wednesday from cable's top-rated reality show after he made anti-gay comments in an interview with GQ. On Thursday, his family said they “cannot imagine” continuing the show without their patriarch.

Also read: ‘Duck Dynasty': Inside the Decision to Suspend Phil Robertson (Exclusive)

The 2010 video emerges just as A&E is trying to find a middle ground that will allow the show to go on. On one side are Christian conservatives outraged at Robertson's suspension for expressing his belief that homosexuality is a sin. On the other are people who say religion is no excuse for bigotry.

“First they say, ‘There is no God. Get him out of your mind,'” Robertson says in the speech. “Then they bow down to birds, animals and reptiles, and each other. And the first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality. They will dishonor their bodies with one another, degrade each other. Uh, is that going on in the United States of America? Look around. God's not there… And boy is there some immorality going on around here. Does it get worse?”

Also read: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Fallout: GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep

Robertson never explains who exactly “they” are. In his GQ interview, he similarly grouped gays with “terrorists” and “drunks,” saying they were all sinners. This time, he seems to be adding animal lovers to the group.

“Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” he continued. “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. So what are you gonna do Pennsylvania? Just run with them? You're going to die. Don't forget that.”

Also read: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Clan ‘Cannot Imagine’ Doing Show Without Phil Robertson

Making the video even more problematic for A&E is the fact that it is, well, a video. Previously, news shows fixated on the story could only run quotes from the print interview. Now they can run Robertson's videotaped remarks, making his statements all the more vivid.

The sermon in the video drew attention in August for Robertson's condemnation of abortion. But the gay remarks were largely overlooked.  The video was scrutinized anew after Robertson's remarks to GQ.

Watch the video:

  • al

    you know anytime some one says something these groups don't like they call it Bigotry, just because they see it just how they want to. He just states his views & he has a right to just like they do.

    • Christian

      When he says that gays “are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil”, I think we have to pretty much agree that this is bigotry. This man must be stopped.

      • dmbellboy

        If you don't like what he say's, then watch something else. Don't make me “stop” you…

      • Sean P Hamilton

        I think you mean disagreed with. voice your opposition! Plenty of ANti Christians voice their disagreement! The Christmas celebrations have been stopped at schools, 100 year old monuments to God have been removed!

        Now you are saying a man must be stopped for expressing his opinion?

        I disagree with the man, but will knock your teeth out for trying to silence him.

        learn to be an American! You will live a better life if you open your mind and accept differences like Christians who built the US did, and welcomed nonChristians to the US

        • Ben Thomas

          “I disagree with the man, but will knock your teeth out for trying to silence him.” ..yeah that's American as shit

      • Paulie Boy

        “This man must be stopped”? I love how you liberal believe in “tolerance” for everyone/everything unless they/it don't share the same worldview.

      • Candy Gurtler

        I love how your name is Christian. I'm going to assume it was a given name from your parents because no where in the article does it say he ever said the word homosexual or gay. He spoke of sexual immorality of which there are many kinds, including, sex outside of marriage and adultry and rape. “They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil”… is actually a quote from the Bible talking about those who have chosen not to accept salvation through Jesus Christ, not about gays. Which is why I assume your name was given to you by your parents. A Christian would have recognized that. This verse is descriptive of the behavior of non-believers. It is also why he never used the word gay or homosexual but sexual immorality instead. You are jumping on the gay bashing accusation bandwagon along with GLADD. You are twisting his sermon to serve YOUR purpose.

        • molosky

          You seem to be confused. GLAAD was concerned about the GQ interview, not this old footage. He was not exactly subtle about his topic.

          • Candy Gurtler

            The only thing I said about GLADD was that they had a gay bashing accusation against Phil. Everything else about my comment was in regard to the sermon. And any Christian who actually reads their Bible is aware that that verse talks about far more than homosexuals. “They” refers to the unforgiven sinner, as identified by the sins listed, which by the way, aren't their only sins but it is impossible to list them all. I simply stated that Christian was following GLADD's lead.

          • molosky

            GLAAD was referring to very specific comments in GQ that were in fact the same sort of “gay bashing” they complain about every day. The fact that he quotes scripture on a different day does not defend him from this per se. So by bringing up GLAAD, YOU are bringing up those comments. Unless you want to claim the GQ interview had nothing to do with gays, then what you are saying here is complete nonsense.

            “And any Christian who actually reads their Bible is aware that that verse talks about far more than homosexuals. ”

            And anyone who watches this video knows that he is specifically emphasizing homosexuality as proof that modern America has succumbed to these. He does not merely quote scripture here. He uses it for specific political purpose.

            Playing dumb with “he's just quoting scripture!” is not going to work. Although I doubt you are trying to convince anyone here.

            “which by the way, aren't their only sins but it is impossible to list them all.”

            Think for just a moment about this. So the list of sins is infinite and they are always implied in all uses of the Bible to claim moral superiority. The fact that a given person chooses specific sins for laying out a specific argument attacking specific people is completely irrelevant to interpreting their intentions. Do you really expect anyone to buy that?

          • Candy Gurtler

            I am not going to argue with you. I am aware this whole thing was brought about by GLADD's coming out against him. That would be the reason I brought it up. If you understand the definition of sin then you understand what I mean about them being too many to list. You obviously don't so I wont bother to explain it to you. The very fact that the Bible clearly states that ALL have sinned only proves that no one is superior to anyone when it comes to sin. The list in the verse merely is an example for us of behaviors of people who sin in an easily seen manner so that we can understand that if we are engaging in those behaviors we need to seek repentance and forgiveness. “murder, envy, strife, hatred” These are sins. The list of sins is not infinite it is subjective. If you are out of God's will you are sinning. If God wants you to walk down this side of the street and speak some hope into someone's life and you decide to cross the street and avoid them, then you are sinning. If you are of the world and do not know God, and his word,then you will not understand no matter what I say anyway.

          • molosky

            “I am aware this whole thing was brought about by GLADD's coming out against him. That would be the reason I brought it up”

            Actually you are still failing to grasp this very very simple concept: 1. GLAAD is not concerned about this sermon. 2. He specifically chose to emphasize gays in his interview. Nobody is making that up. So one more time: defending this sermon has no bearing on defending him from GLAAD. Zero relevance.

            “You obviously don't so I wont bother to explain it to you. ”

            Ah, sanctimony! Another argumentative gem. Also a change of subject: the point is what HE is saying, which is quite specific. If you are saying he is discussing the general concept of sin here, you are lying — which is a sin! You just agree with him, which is fine. But pretending that he has given equal emphasis to all forms of sin — and therefore is not particularly concerned about gays — is laughable to anyone in touch with reality. He's made his priorities here crystal clear.

            “You are apparently the one offended here.”

            Amused, yes. Offended no.

            “If Phil had not stated what the Bible said he would be sinning and would have to answer to God for it. ”

            Hilarious. You do know that most people do not go around saying these things right? They are all letting God down apparently!

            Also did the Bible compel him to argue that blacks were “happy” under Jim Crow?

          • Candy Gurtler

            Again I mentioned GLADD and don't feel the need to explain it but the rest of my comments were about the SERMON which is what this article is about. “If Phil had not stated what the Bible said he would be sinning and would have to answer to God for it. ” He was giving a sermon and in doing such is required to speak about God's word. If you are a minister and speaking from the pulpit and not bringing these things up then yes you are letting God down. “You do know that most people” are not ministers and are not therefore required to preach about sin. He wasn't “going around saying these things” he was preaching a sermon from the pulpit. Call it sanctimony if you like, but if you grasped the concept of sin, and the responsibility of a church leader to speak about it from the pulpit, you would have understood what I was saying from the start instead of misinterpreting, or twisting it to make it sound like I was lying. “the point is what HE is saying, which is quite specific.” You are correct that is exactly the point. He is giving a sermon in a church on sin. “Also did the Bible compel him to argue that blacks were “happy” under Jim Crow?” Find me one quote where the name Jim Crow came out of his mouth. And aren't we discussing the sermon on this video not the interview with GQ? “So one more time: defending this sermon has no bearing on defending him from GLAAD. Zero relevance.” Now who is “still failing to grasp this very very simple concept:”

          • Wynstone

            “Jim Crow” refers to the pre-Civil Rights era which Phil Robertson spoke about in his GQ interview:

            “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person,” Robertson is quoted in GQ. “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.”

          • Candy Gurtler

            I'm aware of what Jim Crow refers to. And thank you for providing the quote so it can be seen that he did NOT state “that blacks were “happy” under Jim Crow?”. Only that “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!..” referring to the “Blacks” he worked with and knew.. And Wynstone, Molosky and I were supposed to be discussing the sermon, not the GQ interview.

          • Wynstone

            It's amazing you can read a direct quote and still deny what was meant because it is remotely possible to interpret it another way even though that other way is not contextually sensible.

          • Candy Gurtler

            Its amazing that people cannot take it for face value without twisting it and telling everyone else what was MEANT. Do you know his thoughts and his heart? But you claim to know what he MEANT. I know what he said, I assume he MEANT what he said and nothing more. Because you want to demonize him you assume he MEANT something other than what he said. You can stop trolling my posts now by the way.

          • Wynstone

            So it was simply an anecdote of what he observed many years ago with no commentary or application to the modern condition? That's the way you take it? That doesn't make sense!

          • molosky

            Well, one way is to just quote it back just cutting out the part that most directly contradicts your spin. Then pretend that the original quote you just read doesn't exist. You can also pretend that spinning this sermon into a generic “sermon on sin” (a dubious interpretation, as I note above and below) somehow proves that Robertson is not especially concerned about homosexuals in general.

            One one hand it make you appreciate the honesty of the many internet dwellers who've just reacted to this story with something along the lines of “hell yeah he hates f-a-g-s — I do too! So does Jesus. Got a problem with that!?”

            Candy's desperation to defend Robertson via spin, however, suggests some degree of unwillingness to accept the comments at face value. That's some sort of progress right?

          • molosky

            I'll just repeat this again, then: it is the GQ interview that is the reason this article (on this page) exists. That is also the reason he was accused of “Gay bashing” and the only reason GLAAD (mentioned on this page by you) is in the picture. Otherwise, we are just looking at someone specifically concerned with a few specific enemies — homosexuals and animal rights activists among others — trying to find a way to make a speech arguing that they are ruining the country into something that someone might be stupid enough to confuse with a generic “sermon on sin.” The “sermon” itself is actually a speech and is nothing more than another opportunity for him to single out specific people that he particularly doesn't like.

            ” You are correct that is exactly the point. He is giving a sermon in a church on sin. ”

            That's what you sincerely think this sermon is about? It's explicitly about what is “going on in the United States of America” — it is an attack on particular behaviors he attempts to link to a particular verse (in some cases, rather feebly — the animal one is especially comical). Are you really this naive or do you feel you can't defend the substance of his sermon rather than just making stuff up?

          • Candy Gurtler

            The substance of his sermon is that America is declining and falling apart at the seams due to rampant sin and Godlessness. Then he gives examples of those sins using scripture and yes the Bible does speak of humans having sex with animal as a sin also, comical or not it is in there. “It's explicitly about what is “going on in the United States of America” I agree completely with that statement.

          • molosky

            “I agree completely with that statement.”

            Good. Then you understand this was a POLITICAL speech about what he sees as his enemies where he used the Bible as a means to attack them. This is not to be confused with a “sermon on sin”

            “Bible does speak of humans having sex with animal”

            That's not what I referred to (although that is also a favorite of his). I am talking about his discussion in this video of modern people concerned with species preservation and/or animal rights, which he claims was addressed in the same verse.

          • Candy Gurtler

            Politics is preached from the pulpit all the time. The reason the middle east hates us is because we are perceived as a Christian Nation. Mostly we were founded on Christian values. The Christians see us as a nation as moving away from those values because of the governmental tolerance of sin. The Christian community feels it has an obligation to preserve those values in the political arena. That is why politics and the Bible are often preached together in the church. I never once said he wasn't speaking about politics, only that he was preaching a sermon in a church using scripture which is what he should be doing as a minister

          • Wynstone

            You claimed I could not know the hearts and minds of others, but you know the hearts and minds of the entire Middle East? Maybe they hate us for decades of Western Imperialism and interference in their affairs? You know the U.S. overthrew the legitimate government of Iran to install a dictator in 1953, right? And I suppose their hate has nothing to do with the killings perpetrated by U.S. and Israeli aggression?

          • molosky

            “I never once said he wasn't speaking about politics”

            Well, you said that this was merely a sermon about sin, when you know that if that were the only purpose, there'd be no need for the specific political arguments being made. It was a political speech — with one important topic being the scourge of modern homosexuality — that referenced a Bible verse. Again, the fact that you agree with him does not change this.

            “governmental tolerance of sin.”

            A country with no such tolerance is not a free country. The only attempts at the sort of government you envision occur in those “Middle east countries that hate us.” The best example being Afghanistan in the 1990s. In other words, only Islamic countries — or countries like Uganda — have more involvement of religion in politics than we do. Meanwhile, the entire Western developed world has much less. Do you consider them all to be wicked?

            As for the general matter, I am of course very familiar with modern political conservatism and the degree to which it has convinced its followers that they represent “Christian values” that must be preserved (primarily to then implement a variety of unrelated economic policies). But that is a political movement, not a religion. Plenty of Christians do not think the government needs to be an authoritarian regime and are perfectly happy promoting their views without worrying about “government tolerance of sin.”

          • Candy Gurtler

            Can you not see that I conceded to your point about the politics?

          • molosky

            You did not concede that his political emphasis — singling out homosexuality and, of all things, animal welfare — was contradictory to your spin about it being about sin in general and “not about gays” or certainly “that no one is superior.” That's what I respond to above. I gather you still believe these things, but they remain obviously false to anyone who watches his selective emphasis on homosexuality (among the least common of sins) and his obvious implication that he and his audience are more righteous than what is “going on in the United States of America”

          • Candy Gurtler

            No I did not concede to that. But it is his church or at least a church he was asked to speak in. In this country if we do not believe with the politics of a church we have the freedom to not attend and not support them. If he believes that is what the Bible teaches and he is teaching in a church that believes the same then he has that right to teach it there. The only reason this sermon was published is because of his popularity in the world. Sermons are preached similar to this one in churches all across America. Many are recorded and several are probably found on YouTube. We don't have to attend those churches or listen to those sermons if we don't want to. His sermon is about sin. He states the Bible calls these things sin. If you don't agree then you don't go to his church. But he is still free to preach them. ALL churches do teach what they believe. The church of Satan preaches self love above all else. I do not agree with that so I don't attend. I pray for the preachers there but I do not tell them they cannot preach it because I don't agree with it.

          • molosky

            Most of what you say here is just off topic nonsense. It's actually a classic example of the “straw man” fallacy which one resorts to when they lack an argument of substance. In this case you are talking about issues of his free speech and my freedom to ignore his sermons. Well, that has nothing to to with the topic, since I never said he or I did not have those freedoms. Your need to make such a distortion to avoid the issue suggests you do not feel you are on solid ground with your claim — clearly stated above in the comments I quoted — that he was not making a political statement about his priority concerns: the modern tolerance of homosexuality and the superiority of him and his audience to Americans that do not think the government needs to regulate personal behavior (as opposed to a comment on the sins that actually dominate modern America — such as the ones committed routinely by the people in that room. These would also include sodomy, by the way!).

            “Sermons are preached similar to this one in churches all across America.”

            Indeed, many political conservative activists do indeed use churches for purely political attacks on their supposed enemies and do usually throw in a little verse to help justify it. And, yes, sometimes their congregants even consider this a “sermon” because of the location. So … if something happens often in churches, that makes it inherently religious? I'd encourage you to rethink your logic.

            I realize you are an unwitting pawn here, and probably will stay that way, but I do hope someday that you realize that your religious beliefs are being manipulated by modern politicians and Robertson is merely a leader among the duped. Homosexuality is an obsession for Robertson and his ilk for reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible, which treats it as the most minimal of concerns within the broad class of hedonism (i.e., the Bible is not as stupid as modern conservatives think — it actually has a point, not just a list of arbitrary things that are “sinful”). If the Bible were the basis for attacks on “sin” we'd hear a lot less about homosexuality. We hear it — and Robertson blindly repeats it — because it is designed to encourage people like yourself to vote for the certain (Republican) politicians, who of course know they will never do anything to suppress homosexuality in real life. Meanwhile they are doing things in other, non-religious, areas that affect you negatively every day.

            So when they hear you are getting excited about defending Robertson, they are very very happy. That means more tax cuts.

          • Candy Gurtler

            So you are not confused as to what it suggests let me tell you what it means. It means that I have no interest in arguing anymore because no matter what I say you will not want to hear it. Keep your opinion, enjoy it. If you want to be angry because he gives a sermon then be angry. If you want to believe he thinks he are self righteous then believe it. Did he say he was superior or do you just feel he is because he believes homosexuality is sin. My point all the way back was that if he believes it is sin and he believes the Bible spells that out then he is required to say so as a minister in his church. Not doing so would not be sticking by his own beliefs. It would be hypocrisy. And him calling it sin does not suggest he is sinless himself. In fact Christianity teaches that we all sin if we didn't then there would have been no need for Jesus sacrifice. I am done because no matter what I say you will believe as you choose and I have become bored with arguing about it. I give up! And just because I disagree with you does not mean I think your opinion is nonsense. If you cannot have a discussion without insulting the person who disagrees with you then there is no need to continue the discussion.

          • molosky

            ” My point all the way back was that if he believes it is sin and he believes the Bible spells that out then he is required to say so as a minister in his church”

            Yes, and my point remains: he is under no obligation to crusade specifically against one subset of people who do the exact same thing as his audience. I am not sure you even understand this: his audience is not superior to homosexuals by his own standard. Thus, why would there be any reason for him to mention homosexuality when their sins are even more “tolerated” than homosexuality? This is what even you acknowledge this is about.

            If you could see clearly, this episode should make you realize is that your POLITICAL affiliation (and Robertson's) is the only thing that compels this emphasis: the goal to expand one's supporters by singling out the least frequent activities and elicit cheers. The Bible is not obsessed with homosexuality. The country is not either. It's the least of our concerns in the real world. Yet it is the consistent focus of all modern conservatives who want to control the lives of others while leaving themselves free to sin without any worldly restrictions.

            ” If you want to believe he thinks he are self righteous then believe it. ”

            Well, he obviously is. The GQ interview is the exact definition of “self righteous.” It is a list of people to whom he is superior — complete with a graphic descriptions of his theory. Again, he is obsessing about anal sex (mostly practiced by heterosexuals, FYI) when he should be concerned about the routine disregard for sexual morality among his supposed followers.

            ” I disagree with you does not mean I think your opinion is nonsense.”

            What you said was not your “opinion” it was a rant on an unrelated topic (“free speech”). That means it is nonsensical in a dicussion on other matters. This is known as a non sequitur. It's as meaningful as randomly mashing the keys. Perhaps you'd prefer I “rebut” your point with an observation about the price of tea in China?

      • billg43

        Preaching the Bible is not Bigotry. Is it Bigotry to say every child deserves a Mother and Father. Phil said hate the sin not the sinner.

    • G

      i hope he dies a horrible death but if he doesn't since he believes in hell he eventually bur for eternity anyway

      • djm

        And you are a Christian?

  • Godfearing

    Phil is absolutely right in the things he said. Jesus called it almost 2000 years ago. if your offended by it, its because you know its the truth that you don't want to here. people now days think that if they deni the truth, then its okay to do it. but it goes against what Christ taught. he also taught that the antichrist would prevail during the end times and if you read all the posts for all these stories about what Phil said you will find that he(anitchrist) is here. Jesus said that the antichrist would come and is already here. that was 2000 years ago, because there were many people then that were anti-Christ and there are more people now that are anti-Christ. Jesus also said that anyone that is not for him and the kingdom of God is against him. that makes you anti-Christ. sorry if you disagree, but its the truth. anti-Christ is gaining his foot hold on this earth and it won't take much longer and we will all be told we will have to have numbers tat on our foreheads or hand. being gay is a abomination to God whether you like it or not, it doesn't change the fact that its true. so no matter what you say or how much or load you say it, it won't change the truth and I feel very sorry for anyone who feels that they are antl-Christ. you won't need to pack your sweaters, It's already pretty warm at your eternal homestead.

    • Eustace Cromartie

      Your ignorance is appalling. Jesus also said rich people will not get to heaven. So your idol Phil is screwed.

      • louisiana girl

        Where exactly does it say that rich people won't get into heaven? I'd like to look that up.

        • ohioguy

          Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
          needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24

          • louisiana girl

            If you read the whole story, not just the one verse, it does not say rich people don't get into heaven. Immediately after this verse, Jesus says, ” With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
            This passage is a story to teach us not to love our money more than God and others.
            There is no definite line separating “rich” people from “not rich” people. God will not care what is in your wallet, bank accounts, etc when you face judgement. What will matter is whether or not you have accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.

          • Wynstone

            But there is no forgiveness without repentance and hoarding wealth when it could be used to end suffering is not repentance, it is greed. It will matter what is in your bank account in the end because it meant you did not repent.

          • Candy Gurtler

            repentance is about confessing your sin and turning your back to it. It has nothing to do with wealth. God blesses in many ways. Some people he blesses with wealth. If you are a good steward with what he gives you and use it for good then it is not greed. If someone has more money than you do it does not mean they are greedy. It may mean they are a better steward. I barely have enough to pay my bills each month but that doesn't mean I have a better chance of getting into heaven than someone who makes 3 times what I do. God has blessed me with a differant kind of riches thats all. Also, all the money in the world will not end suffering. Suffering was brought into this world because of sin and will be here as long as sin is here.

          • Wynstone

            I don't remember the Bible quote saying “some will be blessed with wealth”. If you are a good steward, you will provide yourself and your family with all the comforts you desire and the rest you will give to those in need. Would Jesus do any less? Those who don't are greedy. I don't suggest everyone should live in austerity, but it is obvious many engage in gluttony, another sin and, as Thomas Aquinas notes, is not just indulgence in food and drink, but any inordinate desire. People own more cars than they can drive, more jewels and shoes than they can ever wear while people go without medicine and food and here you are defending them. They should offend you if you are Christian.

          • Candy Gurtler

            I am sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, you simply sound bitter that someone else has more than you.

          • Wynstone

            If you can't address the substance of my comment with a logical argument, just don't reply at all. Trying to make the discussion about personal emotions is absurd. I'm quite happy with my quality of life so I'm not bitter or jealous of anyone. You're probably refusing to recognize greed because it mean recognizing a flaw in yourself.

          • Candy Gurtler

            I did address it…Then you told me how I should feel. “They should offend you if you are Christian.” If you read my previous comments to you I did state “I barely have enough to pay my bills each month but that doesn't mean I have a better chance of getting into heaven than someone who makes 3 times what I do.” So greed is not one of my flaws.

          • Wynstone

            So the common thread of your comments is how flawless you are and how you interpret the Bible better than everyone else. Got it.

          • Candy Gurtler

            No it is how no one can tell what is in a man's heart which is why we have no right to say who makes it into heaven.

          • Wynstone

            I have said nothing about who is or isn't going to Heaven. I said greed is a sin and your counter is that sin is undefinable for some reason so I can't determine who is committing it.

          • Candy Gurtler

            ” But there is no forgiveness without repentance and hoarding wealth when it could be used to end suffering is not repentance, it is greed. It will matter what is in your bank account in the end because it meant you did not repent.” Maybe you should explain what this means then. If you are unrepentant then you are not a true Christian and you are not saved. In the “end” we are judged as to where we spend our eternity.

          • Wynstone

            I think that is self-explanatory as my interpretation of how one does not earn true forgiveness. Like I said before, I didn't say who is qualifying and who isn't.

            You are an expert at being willfully obtuse. Since you are so bent on deconstructing my statements, maybe you should just give me your definition, with examples, of what greed is. Once that is established, maybe you can define gluttony for me too.

          • Candy Gurtler

            There is no need to insult me and once you have done that you have already lost your argument, actually, you lost it back when you told me how I should feel, because you have become too emotionally involved to have a logical and intelligently persuasive conversation. I see you have also trolled the forum to see what else I have commented on, so that you could disagree with me there as well. That tells me you have just turned this into a personal vendetta. If you cannot have a true, accurate and civil discussion without becoming angry, bitter and abusive then I have no interest in continuing the conversation. If you would like to call this a win for yourself then you may do that.

          • Wynstone

            Wow! You never climb off that high horse, do you? You dictate to me the condition in which I may never win an argument if you perceive yourself as insulted and then also dictate which parts of this public forum I may participate in. If it is the wrong part in your opinion, I am then a troll. Since I am challenging you intellectually, it is now a “vendetta”. It was never a vendetta, I just disagree with you and since you can't effectively defend your argument, you claim it's a personal attack. Then in your final comment, you give me “permission” to to “call this a win”. Well, thank you so much!!!

          • Candy Gurtler

            You're welcome

          • Wynstone

            Have a Merry Christmas!

          • Lisa L

            I remember something in the bible that says ” he who is first will be last, and he who is last will be first. So i guess it does not matter who has the most or the least, as long as we live our lives as Jesus wants us to, accept him in our hearts and admit we are sinners, we will all go to heaven. It is just that simple.

          • molosky

            “he who is first will be last”

            That was Talladega Nights!

          • Lisa L

            I am not a religious person at all, so if I am wrong please feel free to educate me here but God makes us who we are, right? In his own image. Some of us are born with special talents and gifts. If someone has the intelligence to complete college and get a great paying job that makes them lots of money then how is that a sin? God is the one who made him smart and because of that, successful. Money does not equate to Sin, I see these christian preachers on TV telling me if i send them $2000.00 i can buy a miracle! Really??? That is greed. I have found Christians to be the most hypocritical groups of people I have ever met! Aren't Christians supposed to give a percentage of their pay checks to the church? If these rich people are doing that then they are not committing any sin that can be called greedy, they are sharing their wealth!

          • Wynstone

            If you read my previous comments closely, you'll see that I don't believe it a sin to enjoy all the world has to offer. You don't need to live in poverty to escape being defined as greedy. Jesus said “love thy neighbor as thyself” so it is fine to treat yourself very well. What is greedy is to hoard material wealth to the point it is wasted. An obvious example would be buying 100lbs of steak you can't eat before it goes bad. This is assuming you don't have a deep freezer. A less obvious example would be to have millions of dollars when all your needs and desires are already met for the foreseeable future. It is a waste to not put that capital to work helping others meet their needs.

            Absolutely many mainstream Christians are complete hypocrites. They have embraced prosperity gospel because it excuses greed and gluttony and most TV preachers are nothing more than con men.

          • Lisa L

            To quote Lisa: ” Most readers today take this as a literal “eye of a needle” however,
            back in Jesus's day cities were surrounded by high walls to protect the
            city from siege. There were short narrow entrances in the wall then
            commonly called “the eye of the needle”. They were build this way to
            make cavalry attacks upon the city improbable. In order to enter a city
            a camel had to get down on it's knees and crawl through the eye of the
            needle.” Most of the verses in the bible are not meant to be taken literally. I believe what louisiana girl said ” the passage is meant for us to love God more than anything else.

      • Nick

        No where did Godfearing say Phil was an Idol. Secondly, It was said that ” It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” I believe that saying says, “easier” not, “impossible”. Making duck calls doesn't necessarily exclude you from the pearly gates of heaven. Thirdly, the gay an lesbian community pushes their agenda on our children and that's crossing the line. I admire Phil for speaking up for god fearing people like me who live by the laws of the bible. The world is changing rather quickly and if we stand by and allow the evil to prevail then we are part of the problem. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed and that's where we're headed unless more people like Phil stand up for the truth.

        • Lisa

          You are correct Nick, Jesus said ” It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Most readers today take this as a literal “eye of a needle” however, back in Jesus's day cities were surrounded by high walls to protect the city from siege. There were short narrow entrances in the wall then commonly called “the eye of the needle”. They were build this way to make cavalry attacks upon the city improbable. In order to enter a city a camel had to get down on it's knees and crawl through the eye of the needle.

        • Lisa L

          It really does not matter what he said, the hard cold fact is that in this country “The United States of America” we have something called freedom of speech! He can say what ever he wants, what ever he believes to be true, that is his right as an American.

          • molosky

            He can. What does that have to do with this controversy over whether he gets to have his TV own show on A&E?

      • dmbellboy

        Phil is the kind of man that will give it away to people (not you) that need it before his time is at hand.

      • dereid49









      • Meredith

        YOUR ignorance is appalling! That's not what Jesus said. He said it is difficult for a rich man to get to Heaven, not that they will not get to Heaven. If you're going to quote the Bible, you might want to brush up on what it *actually* says.

      • Theresa

        Where does Jesus say that rich people will not get to heaven? I don't recall that in my Bible.

        • Lisa L

          I agree or these preachers would not be selling miracles for two grand a piece on tv!

      • nannycoe

        Jesus did not say a rich man could not get to heaven. He said it is hard for a rich man to get to Heaven. Read your Bible.

        • Eustace Cromartie

          How about you read you Bible moron. Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich man to go to heaven. Since it is IMPOSSIBLE for a camel to go through the eye of a needle it is equally impossible for a rich man to get into haven. In case you did not know Jesus did not care for rich people at all.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Claire-Voyant-Claire/100001410191008 Claire Voyant Claire

      Jesus was not a homosexual hater. He defended women at a time when they were stoned to death. His favorite of his disciples was actually Mary. Her name tarnished by Catholics by claiming she was a repentant prostitute. Jesus was not conservative, right wing or for bashing and hating on anyone.

      What is going on today is people are listening too much to words and don't bother looking at actions. Also, his name wasn't Jesus as the letter J wasn't even used back then. Religion has been used time and time again to oppress women and gays. It's highly unlikely gays were being punished for being gays but for sodomy which is RAPE. Why is that left out? During the Christian crusades, they did rape so to cover up their own sins decided it was over being gay instead of the rape aspect….which was rape of men. Sodomy. Anal rape.

      Christians don't really believe in Yahuwah, they believe in oppression, hate and the devil. The devil took the throne thousands of years ago to fill your minds with hate and distort the gospels to throw Mary out of the equation and guess what, these little boys being molested are the temple prostitutes but it's not the little boy's fault. It's the molestors, the sodomists.

      Jesus is not coming back over some doom and gloomy armaggedon. That was inserted in there to give sociopaths an excuse to continue their violent ways. Jesus (Yahushua) will only make a come back when everyone breaks out of their brainwashing to seek out the real truth and enlightment Yahushua has to offer. Stop hating women, stop hating gays. Stop listening to pastors who instill hate and guilt into you and pray for the truth.

      “Ask and ye shall receive”

      Do you really think God (YAhuwah) wants you to fear? Why? Wouldn't that be a demand of satan??

      • Godfearing

        I think you watch too much history channel. the bible is the word of god and man cannot change that. Jesus said that the wisdom of man was nothing. so anything that man has taken out or put in the bible doesn't change the message that God wanted to get through to us. That message is love. because God IS love. nowhere did I say anything about hating anyone. I love all mankind but I don't love the sin. you can try to use your wisdom to manipulate his word but true Christian know better.

        • Lisa L

          I agree! God is about love. The bible has been translated so many times from so many different languages that I have a hard time believing that it is all true. Is it at all possible that some people realized that people feared going to hell and were doing just as Jesus said, so could it be possible that these people who claim to have witnessed Jesus saying certain things made them up in an effort to control people? If they said Jesus said Gay people are going to hell and then wrote it down in the bible it means its true? I don't believe that. If Jesus said to Love each other as he has loved us, does that mean excluding some people? That would be judging, God said Judging is a Sin. I am so confused!

      • appalo L.

        When was Mary a homosexual? She was caught with a man. I think you should read the Bible again and really think about what you are reading.

        • Bonnie McGuire

          Well Jesus was the gay
          one in that book you seem to think you know better and more righteously than any one else
          who may disagree with your Ideological self appalo L. When Jesus was
          captured in the garden by the Romans he was un-robbed and with a boy. Read that you know it all.Jesus was the one caught with a man.
          Maybe I should not share that with you. I should not enlighten you. Jesus never slept with a woman he sure liked having MEN around him washing his feet.

          • Lisa L

            That is just dumb.

      • Chris

        Wow…don't know what you base your faith on Claire, but it isn't the Bible. The biblical context concerning homosexuality and the historical understanding of Homosexuality in Rome and Greece around the Time of the New Testament DOES NOT just refer to rape or too Homosexual Temple prostitutes but talks of homosexuality in the sense of ANY form. But the Bible is not exclusively condemning the sin of Homosexuality but ALL sexually immoral sins. Why can't Christians express their beliefs when the LGBT crowd can shove their lesbian and homosexual ideas in your face all over the media? I have friends and family that are homosexual and they know how I stand. They know I love them and still respect them just as much as a person as I did before I knew they were gay. But I still believe what they are doing is wrong and a sin, because God's word tells me so, and because it's unnatural, and they know I feel this way. When it comes down to it. If homosexuals are allowed to express their views then we as Biblical Christians should be able to express ours too.

    • Lisa L

      Maybe you should spend less time reading the bible and more time learning how to spell!

  • louisiana girl

    One of the major problems I see with the people against what Phil Robertson has said is they are making more out of it than they should. Phil is not “grouping” gays with bestiality, terrorists, drunks, etc… The Bible says we are ALL sinners. By sexual immorality, he does not mean just gay people. Sexual immorality is all sex outside of marriage, which includes heterosexuals, too! If you were to ask Phil if he is still a sinner, I am willing to bet you he would say yes. He is a true man of God, and he knows that Jesus was the only perfect man to ever walk the earth.

    • Eustace Cromartie

      I guess you see what you what to see in his comments.

      • Tim Rowland

        Or you recognize that he is QUOTING SCRIPTURE!!!! Romans 1, verses 27-31:
        “And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

        28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy.”

        • Uriel

          Ahh but the context, context, context, He did what many preachers do. A long letter written by Paul to the Church to explain some things hard to understand as Peter would say.He took the passage out of its context.

          • Paulie Boy

            LOL. “Taken out of context”? Please master homo and theologian, expound upon how he took it out of context.

          • leecappella

            Because the context is about idolatry and things that were done in an idolatrous context. It's not talking about John and Jeff down the street who met, fell in love, and made house together.

        • Carol Clinch

          Check out the four gospels-Jesus, himself, never said anything about homosexuals. He only ask that we love one another.

          • Paulie Boy

            Carol, you are a moron. Your thought is dictated by emotion not reason or logic.

          • Caro Wells

            LOL and people who follow random 3000 year old bible verses literally (and try to force others do so as well) are NOT dictated by emotion, reason or logic??? Oh, and your childish name-calling was dictated by logic and reason, too, right?

            Carol is correct. Jesus Christ's message was a simple one, and it was about love, not condemnation or judgement.

          • Michael E Parker

            Wells, you have never read the bible..if you had, you would have discovered that Jesus had told a group of people who were conspiring to kill him that they were of their father the devil in Matthew, that he called the religious leaders of his time a “brood of vipers”, that he was so angry in the temple, he overturn the tables cause they had turned it into a den of thieves, and as for Jesus NEVER saying anything about Homosexuality, he drew the example of if a man JUST LOOKS at a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery with her…and this lets off the homosexuals instead..right? America is Bible illiterate..and it has nothing to do with “random”bible versus..it has to do with the entire book..read it and find out.

          • Bonnie McGuire

            LOL I like the concept Michale but there is no reasoning with idealogical fundies. They are not of this world anyway I wish they would all follow Phil and the Fred Phelps WBC to Jesus and leave other people alone. They just can not help their selves they have to try to make other people as miserable as they are!

          • Jesus is Gold

            Jesus came to save sinners. His message was that NO ONE goes to heaven but through him. You are not in Christ if you deny that you are a sinner.

          • Michele L Craycraft

            You are also not in Christ if you continue to Sin

          • Bonnie McGuire

            Amen to that Caro !!! Except for one small thing there was NEVER a jesus it is a myth.

          • appalo L.

            Carol look this up in your Bible. Leviticus 18:22- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because for homosexuality.

          • Sean P Hamilton

            If you believe in the Old Law, then you are subject to it, and the blood of Christ means nothing to you! His sacrifice was not for you because like the Jews; the Law was not written for them not Christians.

            You read the old law, maybe to understand history and what God had done. but not for salvation or guidance.

            Look at what Paul said about circumcision?

            The only sin gays commit is the same as adulterers, fornicators and porn masturbators commit. But they are all forgiven and never should be condemned!

          • Babe

            They are only forgiven if they realize their sinful condition and ask for forgiveness, and make straight their ways.

          • leecappella

            Jesus doesn't have an issue with an orientation that he already knew would be associated with various humans (ie. natural eunuchs). You have been led to believe, like many, that gay people are hell bound. Thus, your words are guilty of mistreating your neighbor, instead of loving your neighbor. You have made being heterosexual a requirement for entrance into heaven when it was never a requirement. The religious rules and regulations of Christianity made it a requirement. Jesus said those who love their neighbor are going to inherit life. Jews believed being circumcised was a requirement for acceptance to God. Paul said, it was not because being uncircumcised is not a requirement of the King's faith which is based on how you treat your neighbor. Being uncircumcised does not prevent someone from loving their neighbor. Therefore, it is irrelevant to be circumcised. Likewise, being gay does not prevent someone from being a doer of the law and loving others (Romans 2:13). Therefore, it is irrelevant to require someone to be heterosexual. The only requirement is to love your fellow man as those in Matthew chapter 25 did, which is why they are the righteous. Whereas, those who do not love their neighbor as self are the unrighteous and it doesn't matter if they are Christians or not. Being a Christian is not a requirement. There's always so much more to know than what you already know. IMHO.

          • Jake Cole

            Actually, as a devout Jew, and speaking to practicing, cultural Jews, Jesus spoke to issues that primarily affected his immediate listeners. Whether or not he spoke to the issues question is really irrelevant to the matter knowing the culture into which he was speaking. Paul, the apostle called to the Gentiles, who spoke to a culture much like ours, used the moral code expounded in the Levitical law as his basis, going so far as to call the law “our teacher”, in that it teaches us what should be, and Christ empowers all who believe in him to live toward that end, and that any deviation from that moral code proves the very point of lostness.

          • leecappella

            As a devout Jew, please explain the two groups of commands found in the old testament law of Moses that Paul often referred to: the Jobs and the Justices. Please explain why one of these group of commands found in the old testament law of Moses was seen as no longer applicable by Paul in the new testament. Thanks.

          • Jake Cole

            Romans 2:13 and 3:20 aren't in opposition to each other (I mean, you have to go through one to get to the other). Paul, writing to a church composed of mostly Jews, is furthering the point began in 1:18, by calling them to look, not at the supposed differences –possession of the commands of God versus not–but how they both responded before believing in Christ: that one was just as guilty and condemned as the other because while both practiced religions that supposedly would move them toward a divine reality through certain moral activity, they were in fact heaping condemnation on themselves for living superficially.

          • leecappella

            Yours, Jake, is one way of seeing Romans. I wish you were God because I would immediately believe what you
            were telling me. As it were, neither of us are God and are, therefore, capable of being incorrect in our summations. Thus, we both stick to what we believe without believing the other. I still find it good to share, nonetheless.

            My take on Romans is this: Paul wants to convey to the Jews that their adherence to the law of Moses and all of its commands is unnecessary. Paul speaks of two laws in Romans. In Romans 2:13, he refers to the law of Christ,
            which is what Jesus said one must to to inherit life: love thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 3:20 refers to the law of Moses and the works found within the law of Moses. As I'm sure you know, no one is saved by works, but the Jews
            believed they had to obey all of the commandments in the law of Moses, including the commands based on works (ie. being circumcised, etc.). Jews were also prideful of the law of Moses and in following it to the letter. Paul knew this. He also knew that the law of Moses called for the death penalty to anyone who participated in homosexual pagan idolatry for religious ritual. In Rome, homosexuality wasn't such a big deal and it seemed to the Jews that Paul, in his letter to the Romans, was on the verge of condemning the Romans for their acceptance of homosexuality, but that was not the case.

            Paul knew, as a follower of Christ, that Jesus taught love as the fulfillment of the Law: the Law of Christ, not the law of Moses. So, Paul taught the very same message. Romans 2:13 and Romans 3:20 are opposed to one another if a Jew believed he had to do all the commands in the law of Moses, which consisted of commands based on works and commands based on loving others. When the man in
            Matthew 19:16-19 asked Jesus how to inherit life and Jesus told him to keep the commandments, the man asked, “Which ones?”. Quite possibly, the man knew that the law of Moses was divided into two groups: the Jobs and the
            Justices. The Jobs are all of the commands between man and God. The Justices are all of the commands between man and his neighbor. Just like Jesus, Paul's intent was to show the boastful Jews that their devotion to the Jobs found in the law of Moses is not going to exonerate them before God. That is why he said in Romans 3:20, no one will be justified by the works of the Torah. There will be no more boasting of works!

            Paul uses the homosexual pagan rituals as his counterexample so he can make the point to the Jews that if they treat their fellow man unkindly, they will face
            God's wrath. All the devotion in the world to the other commandments (ie. the works found in the law of Moses) will do nothing for them. The homosexual pagan rituals were considered Jobs (ie. things people did out of religious devotion that have nothing to do with how you treat your neighbor and, therefore, do not save you). The clearest indication in Romans 2 that brotherly love is the deciding factor for salvation, not adherence to religious
            rules, is Paul's example of an uncircumcised man.

            An uncircumcised man is breaking the law of Moses because the law of Moses required circumcision. Yet, Paul says that an uncircumcised man who keeps the
            requirements of the law will be seen as if he were circumcised because he kept the requirements of the Law. How can an uncircumcised man keep the requirements
            of the law if he's breaking the law just by being uncircumcised? That would be because he's keeping the requirements found in the Law of Christ, not in the law
            of Moses. The uncircumcised man is loving his fellow man as the Law requires, thus, meeting the requirements of the Law. Paul is teaching that the law of Moses is no longer in force, which is why most Christians believe they are no
            longer under a law. But, they are under a law, It's just a different law. Humanity is, actually, under this Law, because God is the Creator of all. God, I don't believe, is concerned with if someone is a Christian or not because being a
            Christian is not a requirement of the Law of loving others. Humanity is called to the enslavement of loving others. That is the Law we all are expected to keep. If you go back and read the other bible passages where loving thy
            neighbor as thyself is mentioned, hopefully, you will see this. This is what I believe Paul was trying to get across to his Jewish audience.

            He used the homosexual pagan rituals to say to the Jews, “Hey! Jesus has not abolished the law, but has fulfilled it be declaring what is law and what is law no more. Only the commands based on brotherly love are the Law. Everything else that a person does for religious reasons is unnecessary. If you're keeping all of your works and mistreating your neighbor, you will face God's wrath. Stop putting people to death for their homosexual
            pagan rituals! The Law is not based on these kinds of works, but is, instead, based on love, altruism, and benevolence. God will repay each person according to his deeds: To those who seek glory, honor, and immortality by persisting in benevolent deeds—he will give life in the age to come. God is not respecter of person if they keep the commandments based on brotherly love.”

            Immediate entrance into heaven is dependent upon how you treat people. It's not dependent on your gender, your
            race, your religion, your sexual orientation, your social status, etc. This is the message of Paul because it was the message of Jesus and he knew that. And, I might add, believing in Jesus is not what we have been taught it is.
            Believing in Jesus is simply hearing what he said you must do to inherit life, applying what he said to your life, and actually doing it. Thus, loving your neighbor as thyself as the righteous did in Matthew chapter 25's example.

            This is, seemingly, a challenge for a lot of Christians because a lot of them are not loving and treating their gay neighbors in the same way that they would want to be loved and treated. Paul's intent was to take the Jews away from one law (ie. the law of Moses) and introduce them to another (ie. the law of being enslaved to loving our fellow man).

          • Jake Cole

            I have to agree with your final point and completely agree with how homosexuals are perceived and how they ought to be dealt with (sounds ugly but I can't think of another way to put it). The urges and the actions are only a few of the many symptoms (Romans 1:28-32 contains one of these lists) of a greater problem: the rejection and suppression of God's revealed, unchanging truth (Romans 1:18).
            Now, as to the issue of heaven, salvation, it is based not on works, but on grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10). You seem to be endorsing some kind of universalism that insists that if you are nice and treat people kindly, God will welcome you, sadly that is not the case. Paul quotes from Proverbs 24:12 in Romans 2:6, which is merely a general understanding and misunderstanding of God: judgment is abated or commenced in one deed: acceptance or rejection of Christ. Acceptance of Christ is to reject the ways of this life and put on the ways of God (Romans 12:1-2). John emphasizes a similar point in his first epistle (3:3-9), that there is no habitual sin in those who are in the faith.
            Homosexuality was not just a cultic element of Roman religion, it was rampant within the culture. It may have started in the temples but it flowed into the streets, a quick review of Roman history will dispel that myth, as we as a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 6:9, where Paul makes the careful distinction between the cultic male prostitutes (catamites, sometimes rendered homosexual) and those who were in the lifestyle (sodomites), then in v. 11 clearly states that they had left their past behind in their faith in Christ.
            As to your supposed distinction between Romans 2:13 and 3:20, there is none. Paul is establishing his argument that sums up in 3:21-26, that no one is able to save themselves, and that Christ died to redeem sinful man and bring him into a right relationship with God, apart from law, by faith, which fulfills and establishes the law (3:27-31). If being a believer in Christ, a Christian per se, is not important, is not necessary, then why did Christ have to come, why did he have to be promised, promoted, punished, and presented?

          • leecappella

            At least, we agree on some things, Jake, just not on all things. Fortunately, the only thing I owe you is to love you, regardless of our differences.

            Romans 1:28-32 aren't the symptoms of people who have rejected God's unchanging truth that heterosexuality is the only acceptable relationship to God. This, I assume, is what you are implying. The rejection is of the truth revealed in the only commandments that Jesus said a person should do in order to inherit life (see Matthew 19:16-19). You may not agree that loving kindness towards your fellow man is a determining factor for inheriting life, but that is exactly what Jesus tells the man in Matthew 19:16-19. And, Jesus even gives examples of some of the commandments that are based on loving kindness.

            We both understand Romans 2:6 from different aspects. You don't see Romans 2:13 and Romans 3:20 as being at odds with one another, but I do. Your view is maintaining a belief that says, one has to accept Jesus in order to be saved. This is in the modern traditional sense of ‘accepting Jesus’ that I am referring to. That belief holds to the notion that Christians are not under any law whatsoever. It's a belief that says that a person only has to ask Jesus into one's heart and accept him as their Lord and Savior. This is pretty much what ‘faith in Jesus’ means to today's Christians. However, I find that ‘faith in Jesus’ means to believe what he said to do to inherit life and simply do it. What he said to do is what the Law is. If there is no law to be followed, then Paul would not have mentioned that there is and that those who do what the Law says will be justified before God (Romans 2:13). This, of course, is the very same Law and commandments that Jesus tells the man in Matthew 19:16-19 that he (and the rest of humanity) must be doers of in order to inherit life. Paul teaches this because Jesus taught it as well. He understood where Jesus was coming from.

            This is not a works based faith. Today's Christianity has been taught that works are things people do in order to be saved. But, the idea of what works actually are has nothing to do with everything a person might do in order to be saved.

            Works were a set of commandments found in the law of Moses that consisted of things people did out of devotion to God. The law of Moses consisted of two groups of commandments. One group was known as Jobs or works. The other was known as ethics or Justices. Works or Jobs were commandments between man and God and involved doing things out of devotional service to God. Ethics or Justices were the opposite. They were the commandments that were between man and his neighbor and were based on how you treated your fellow man. Thus, the law of Moses was divided into two groups, works and ethics. Jobs and Justices. When the bible speaks of not being saved by works, it is the commandments between man and God that are being referred to as works. The commandments between man and his neighbor, however, are still in effect and it is these commandments that Jesus told the man in Matthew 19:16:19 that should be done in order to inherit life in the age to come. This is why I believe the man asked Jesus, “Which ones?”, because the man was, likely, aware of the divided group of commandments in the law of Moses.

            So, as I see it, Romans 2:13 and Romans 3:20 are at odds and that is why Paul says one law must be done to be justified before God, while the other law does not justify anyone. The ethics or Justices are to be followed and doing so will justify the doers (Romans 2:13). The works or deeds of the law will not justify anyone (Romans 3:20). Jesus fulfilled the law by establishing what is law and what is no longer law. He did this in his reply to the man in Matthew 19:16-19 and Paul reiterates this in his letter to the Romans.

            Since it was Paul's intention to convey the message of educating people about works and ethics, he used an example of something no longer applicable because it fell under the category of being a Job or work: pagan homosexual rituals done in pagan temples for idolatrous purposes. These were things people did out of religious service and devotion to their god(s). Such things were not worthy of death (Romans 1:27). Instead, Paul says those who participated in these things paid the price within themselves. Their penalty for their error was meet in their own person. Paul did not conclude that those who did the things mentioned in Romans 1:21-27 were headed for death as their punishment. He would not be faithful to the Law had he said so. However, for Jews, the Torah called for the death penalty for such things (ie. Leviticus 20:13). But, remember, such things in the law of Moses were considered Jobs or works that people did out of religious service. Paul brought up an example of something defined as works so that he could concede that only the commandments based on brotherly love or the ethics are the Law. Nothing else!!

            He continues in verses 28-32 to make sure that his hearers know, as they already did know, that the things that are worthy of death are worthy of death because they are violations of the Justices or ethics. They violate the Law of brotherly love or loving thy neighbor as self. The things he lists in verses 29-31 are all unloving acts towards one's fellow man. They violate the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself and, as a result, Paul deems them worthy of death. Paul felt idolatry was the cause of unloving acts towards one's neighbor. Imagine the Jews’ response hearing this. I bet they thought Paul was going to slam the Gentiles and their acceptance of homosexuality, just like a true Jew would do. After all, the Jews had a law that put people to death for homosexuality. But, that was not the case or intent of Paul. Instead, Paul took an example of a commandment between man and God to convey his message that the commandments between man and God are null and void now that the utterance Jesus spoke, ‘love thy neighbor as thyself', is the one and only Law. Jesus made the commandments between man and his neighbor the requirement for inheriting life in the age to come. Thus, his Matthew 19:16-19 answer, as well as his words in Matthew chapter 25 about the goats (ie. the unrighteous) and the sheep (ie. the righteous). To love your neighbor as yourself and to show it in acts of loving kindness is not works. Maybe, to the modern day teaching of Christianity, but not according to the context of the biblical passages and what I believe is its original intent. You have to differentiate between what you have been taught in today's modern faith versus what was the faith of those who came before you.

            ‘Believing in Jesus', ‘having faith in Jesus', and being a ‘follower of Christ', are all various ways of reiterating what I have been saying to you and others and it is this: Do what Jesus said to do and love thy neighbor as thyself. When you do this, you are being a doer of the law. When you do this, you are seen by Jesus as having faith in Jesus. When you do what the Law of loving others says to do, you are a follower of Christ. When you do this, you are seen as loving God in your habitual practice of loving your neighbor. When Jesus told the man that he would inherit life if he kept the commandments, he told him that because that is what you do to inherit life. If you were a Jew, you would be torn between keeping the Torah and all of its commands or doing what Jesus said to do, resulting in letting go of the works based commands found in the Torah. A Jew in this position would have to decide who to believe in. Believe in the religious leaders of his day? Or, believe in Jesus. This is the case I present before many with what I am saying. However, I feel that I am only repeating Jesus’ message, much like Paul was.

            The terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9 have always been unclear to many people, even bible scholars. The list found in the verses has two words that are often defined as referring to homosexual relationships. It's interesting because, in some bibles, the first word is translated as ‘homosexual', while the second word is translated as something else. Or, it's reversed in another bible and the first word means something else, while the second word in the text means ‘homosexual'. Then, there are translations that come across as vague by using terms like homosexual offender or perverts. Perverts could apply to anyone besides a homosexual. And, what is a homosexual offender? Vague. The best explanation I get is from author Michael Wood, who has changed my view with his Dead Sea Scrolls and Koine Greek papyri findings and analysis.

            Since Paul taught the importance of the Law of brotherly love and how anything that broke that Law was a sin and worthy of death, 1 Corinthians is believed to be about rapers of young boys or pederasty, which is, indeed, a violation of brotherly love. In Luther's version of the New Testament, arsenakoitai is defined as knabenschander, which means rapist of young boys. Your definition of a catamite as a cultic male prostitute would make sense if catamites were involved in pagan rituals prostitution, but I have not heard of that. Instead, it makes sense that a catamite was a young boy who was the lover of an adult male, against his will. Thus, a victim of pederasty, which was very prominent in Paul's day and time. A sodomite, as I have mentioned elsewhere, is a male devoted to licentious idolatry via prostitution. Our modern world defines a sodomite as a homosexual. That is a newer meaning that I do not agree with. Instead, the term specifies a male prostitute devoted to idolatry, which is what you defined a catamite as. In Koine Greek, 1 Corinthians starts off as saying,

            “…Don't you know that those lacking altruism cannot enter God's kingdom..”

            Paul's issue was with those who broke the Law of brotherly love. As a result, he was in opposition to such things. What is listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9 are all things Paul believed violated this Law. I don't believe he was referring to homosexuals since being a homosexual or even being in an adult homosexual relationship does not violate the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. Like many ancient documents attest to, idolatry was seen as a source of human cruelty. Child sacrifices, murders, drunken feasts of revelry, infidelity in marriages, etc. all went on in circles of idolatry. Paul did not like this because it caused humans to mistreat other humans, which is a violation of Jesus’ Faith, which is to love one another. Based on all of the things I've said about the Law of Christ and how it was taught by Jesus and Paul, I cannot conclude that homosexuals are breaking the one and only Law that determines sin. Thus, we disagree, respectfully. Nonetheless, I love you from a distance and wish you a very happy new year!

          • Michele L Craycraft

            Jesus warns even hetro sexuals they are in danger of hell fire if the commit adultery. There is no room for Sin if you follow Jesus.As Jesus says you cannot worship him and sin.You either worship Jesus or you worship sin.How can you say you Love Jesus and Sin?

          • leecappella

            I agree with you, Michele. Adultery is a violation of the law of Christ: to love thy neighbor as thyself. However, homosexuality is not a violation against thy neighbor, IMHO.

          • FilmPunk

            But sexual sins are a violation of God's law who stated that all other sins are committed outside the body but sexual sins are committed with the body which is temple of Holy Spirit. Fornication of any kind is wrong and as Paul says those unnatural desires. Remember God destroyed two cites because of their homosexuality.

          • leecappella

            Which law are you referring to, FilmPunk? You will have to provide chapter and verse, please. Fornication should be defined according to its use in the bible and that use is not in regards to two people who are single who have sex with one another. Fornication in the bible is in reference to female adultery. I posted this somewhere on here. You will have to search for it, as I don't want to retype what I have already typed. Although, I seem to do that anyway:)

            The two cities were not destroyed because of homosexuality, although that is what many are told. I do not agree with that. The two cities were set to be destroyed prior to the story involving potential rape. There was no one righteous in those cities, which means, there was no one showing altruism, benevolence, or loving kindness to their neighbor. Even before Christ came, loving others had always been expected. Sodom and Gomorrah failed to love others. The citizens of Sodom surrounded Lot's house with the intent of harm to Lot and his guests. This is a violation of loving thy neighbor as thyself. They also had much and did not share and they were haughty, which is what unrighteous people are like. There was no one righteous there.

          • Michele L Craycraft

            That's where you are wrong even hetrosexuals were in danger of hell if they commited adultery.Jesus say he did not come to do away with law but to fufill it!
            As Jesus says you cannot wirship God and Manna,You cannot acclaim to be in Christ and Sin.As Jesus does not SIn and is not a SInner.He warned the woman caught in adultery not to sin again.He even said that this was an evil and adulterous generations that seeks a sign.The only sign they will receive is the sign of Johnah. Johnah is a story of repentance of Sins.

          • YahisGood

            Jesus would have an issue with any sin and Homosexuality is most definitely called a sin in scripture. The part of the Law that was abolished is that dealing with the ritual of the temple, dietary laws, ritual cleansing and alike. The moral law was not abolished, but instead written on the hearts of believers. What people don't seem to understand is that all societies have governing laws, and Israel was a theocratic society, so many of its laws were a form of discipline that was designed for purposes going beyond mere social order. With the destruction of the Temple, and the end of Israel as a sovereign nation, many of its laws that were specifically geared towards the ritual practice of Judaism as a discipline were no longer necessary and in fact a stumbling block for Gentile converts to Christianity. The moral laws were not a part of that which was done away with.

            The issue is not with Homosexuality being something that condemns a person to Hell, but simply that it is sin and counter to God's wishes according to scripture. Heterosexual sexual relations outside of the sanctity of marriage is just as much a sin as homosexual sex. What makes homosexuality a dangerous sin along with all sexual sin is that it is a sin of lifestyle which is a habitual sin. Habitual sin isn't inherently worse than any other sin, but it is far more difficult to turn away from and repent of because it is after all habitual.

            I'll let you in on a little secret that's actually no secret at all. We are all bound for Hell. Don't let that shock you. The word translated Hell in our English Bibles is the Hebrew Sheol, and the Greek Hades. Both of these words simply mean the grave, and we all go to the grave. A simple honest study of scripture will reveal that there is no place of eternal torment mentioned in scripture, and this idea of eternal torment comes from a misunderstanding of the relevant Biblical passages.
            Another important consideration is that Christians should never expect non believers to live their lives according to biblical principals. Its far better to appeal to non believers to consider the goodness of God so that they will desire to live according to His statutes out of love, rather than beating them over the head with reminders of their sin and threats of Hell fire. All this can do is produce a bitter rejection of God altogether, and what good does that do. Homosexuals are no worse sinners than anyone else, and why would anyone choose to turn away from their sin when they have been made to see God as a hateful terrorist rather than a loving Father who awaits our decision to turn back to Him out of Love.

          • Candy Gurtler

            You are correct to a point. Hell does exist but it is not a place per say. It is death also like you say and Jesus conquered death when he rose again and promised eternal life for those who believe. The idea of Hell being a burning place of torment came from early churches who took it from some of the book of Revelation. Hell is a complete and total separation from God. God is all around us every day. Whether you are an unforgiven sinner or a forgiven one. The unforgiven do not recognize his presence but in Hell they will most definitely recognize his absence. There was no other way to describe the pain of that separation in the Biblical days that readers of the time would have understood than to use brimstone and fire. But there is not actually brimstone and fire. It is death of the body but the spirit lives on in an awareness that they have been moved from God's presence. Which is unbearable. The righteous’ spirit also lives on but it is with the Father and in glory because of it, Not in actual mansions with streets paved with gold. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the LIFE. That is why we will not die, because we are with Jesus who is LIFE, and not separated form the Father.

          • FilmPunk

            The idea of hell being a burning place of torment came from Jesus Christ who spoke more about hell than he did heaven.

          • Candy Gurtler

            But the point was it was spoken of in terms that the people of that day could understand. Our popular idea of it come from artists renditions, on canvas on churches etc. Paintings and sculptures.

          • leecappella

            We agree and disagree, Yahis. The moral code is found only in one Law: to love thy neighbor as thyself. That's why it's the one and only Law that sums up all laws. Again, it sums up all other laws. Homosexuality's condemnation in the bible is in reference to any and all unloving acts done to another human being in the context of homosexuality. We both agree that in the bible,homosexuality is condemned, but we disagree on some levels because context matters. You mentioned how rituals of the temple were abolished. Leviticus 18:22 refers to such rituals which involved homosexual acts.It's the same idolatrous rituals that Romans chapter one refers to. This has nothing to do with today's issue of homosexuality.Paul taught that what people do out of religious devotion is unnecessary. They are works. Instead, love for your fellow man is what matters. Thus, making homosexuality a non issue when it comes to entering heaven because homosexuality, like heterosexuality, does not prevent a person from doing what is required to inherit life, which is to love their fellow man like the righteous did in Matthew chapter 25.

            I agree that there is no eternal (literally, forever) punishment. No loving God would do that. No loving parent would do that, but people still believe it. Instead, I do believe that there is punishment. Any loving parent does punish, but it's temporary punishment in Gehenna. Good talking to you!:)

          • FilmPunk

            No loving parent would do that. You are correct, but the people who reject God's son, Jesus Christ, are not his children. A righteous God would reject those and it's explained over and over agin in the scriptures. Two thieves hung on the cross with Jesus but only one entered paradise. Jesus said he came to seek and save the lost but a person who rejects him is condemned.

          • leecappella

            The righteous in Matthew chapter 25 are righteous because they lived lives practicing benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness. The unrighteous in chapter 25 are unrighteous because they did not live lives practicing benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness. God is a righteous God because God is the Father of benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness. He sent his Son to die for the sins of the world, not for the sins of Christians only. It was an act of loving kindness when God decided to send Jesus to be the Savior of the world. He is the Father of love, for God is love.

            We are all children of God because God is the Creator of us all. However, on another level, not everyone is a child of God because everyone does not do what Jesus said to do, which was to love one another. 1 John 3:10-11 tells us how to know who is a child of God and who is not. Whoever is benevolent, altruistic, practicing loving kindness is of God. Whosoever is not is not of God. Again, Matthew 19:16-19 supports the righteous as being those who are benevolent, altruistic, practicing loving kindness. That is, after all, why they are the righteous sheep in the story.

            Everything I've said up 'til now should not be dismissed because of what Jesus said to one of the men on the cross. Jesus showed compassion and he, being Jesus, had the authority to say what he did. He also knew the man's heart and how the man lead his life. The man was known to be a thief, yet Jesus, in the midst of dying for our sins forgave the man, showing love for him. After all, Jesus died for his sins too. The other man showed no compassion and, instead, spoke words of selfishness, wanting to be saved from his death. I believe in the salvation of every human, so I can only assume in faith that the other thief was not saved from God's wrath. As a result, he, like the unrighteous, will have to endure God's wrath, which is punishment for being lawless law breakers and not being doers of the Law of loving their fellow man, which is what one must do to inherit life in the age to come (Romans 2:13, Matthew 19:16-19). Happy new year to you, FilmPunk!

          • Joshua Proper

            leecapella, you seem very defensive of homosexuality and have actually made an argument that on its own would seem legitimate: that heterosexuality “is not a requirement to enter heaven”. Well, let me start by say this: No its not, neither is loving thy neighbor – which is your self proclaimed requirement. The only requirement was to believe in Jesus and that he died on the cross for us, and to ask him for forgiveness. That is the only requirement period.

            Now to address your argument toward homosexuality being a non-issue. Let me ask you this, do you believe that God does not change? He is forever the same right? So, if you agree to that – Tell me the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? Tell me what reasoning was given for its destruction, specifically in exact context, not interpretation from you. The fact is God was very very clear that any sexual act outside of Marriage between husband and wife was a sin and was unnatural. To make the argument you did, seems to prove that you have read the Bible in search of loopholes, not answers. You have sought the justification of an action, not the truth.

          • leecappella

            Hi, Joshua.

            Thanks for replying to me. We both believe that believing in Jesus is the requirement. We both just don't agree on just what ‘believing in Jesus’ means. I'm not here with the intent of changing your mind. I'm just here to put the info out there so that others know. Having been raised a Christian myself, there is no doubt that I have already heard what you've said to me. However, further study has enlightened me to what Jesus and Paul were saying in the original language of the bible, as opposed to modern day bible translations.

            God, in the old testament, gave the children of Israel prohibitions in the law of Moses. There were things that they could not do under that law. Under the new covenant, some of those prohibitions are no longer applicable. That is to say, some of the things that could not be done under the law of Moses can now be done because they are not prohibited under the new covenant. In this sense, God does change because what God once said not to do under the law of Moses is now permissible. When people say God never changes, I tend to relate that to God's unchanging essence, character, and that which makes God God. God is love. That will never and has never changed.

            Sodom and Gomorrah was set to be destroyed prior to the attempted rape of Lot's guests. It was set to be destroyed because there was no one righteous who lived there. To be righteous is to be one who is altruistic, benevolent, and one who practices loving kindness towards others (see Matthew 25:32-46). Apparently, no one like that lived there. The reason for its destruction is found in Genesis chapter 18 as well as in Ezekiel 16:49-50. You ask for no interpretation, but any reading requires interpretation. Interpreting is understanding what it is that you are reading. Many people read the Sodom story as if it's telling them that Sodom and Gomorrah were cities of all homosexuals, but there isn't anything in the story telling the reader this information. It's an interpretive assumption that the reader makes. Even further, if it were a homosexual crowd surrounding Lot's home, Lot's offering of his virgin daughters to them would be an offer made in vain to homosexuals. Even ths United States’ gayest city, San Francisco, maybe, is not all homosexual. Therefore, to assume that Sodom was all homosexual seems very unlikely to me.

            Nonetheless, the reason for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction was it's lack of righteous people. That is because those who are righteous, even before Christ, were seen by God as acceptable to God. Since there was no one benevolent, altruistic, or practicing loving kindness, as those in Matthew chapter 25:32-46 did, the bible says God chose to remove Sodom and Gomorrah. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality in general. It was about how the citizens mistreated the strangers that wandered into their city as is evident in the story involving Lot, his guests, and all of the inhospitable citizens that surrounded Lot's house. There was no one who loved their neighbor as self.

            Again, thanks for your reply.

          • FilmPunk

            Be careful not to add to scripture. No one is making sexual orientation an requirement for Christianity. Look at what Paul wrote in Romans 1. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth…. vs24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their heats to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” Paul continues, “For God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature: and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” You can't twist your way out of God's word anymore than I can. I wish I could live as I please and still be called a child of God but it doesn't work that way. If I love God I'll follow his commands and they don't include sexual immorality, lying, hatred, lust- I think you get the picture.

          • leecappella

            The requirement for inheriting life in the age to come is to love thy neighbor as thyself and adhere to all of the commands that are based on loving thy neighbor as thyself. I'm not concerned about the requirement for Christianity. God is not a Christian. I don't find God to be concerned about a person's religious affiliation. Instead, God is, likely, more concerned about whether or not a person is loving their fellow man, like the righteous are known for doing. Or, if they are living lives of selfishness, as the unrighteous are known for doing. This is not a Christian only Law. It's a humanity Law for everyone. God is no respecter of persons. God's moral code is found within the commandments of the royal Law (James 2:8). Your issue with sexual immorality is just your inability to accept that God is okay with some things that you, personally, are not okay with. Things that break the Law of brotherly love are what I believe God considers sin. Jesus uttered a Law, if you keep it, you do well and sin not. If you break it, you are sinning. It's simple! Your personal view that homosexuality is wrong is fine, but in and of itself, homosexuality is not a violation of the Law and, therefore, it is not a sin according to the Law. According to you, it is, but people don't live by your faith, only you do. That means, if you believe something is wrong, you should not do it, otherwise, you are sinning against your conscience if you do what you do not allow (Romans 14:14,22-23).

            People in Paul's day viewed eating meat that had been offered to idols as a sin. Some were okay with eating it. Some were not. The point is, when something is within the guidelines of the Law, it's up to you and your conscience to decide what is right or wrong. According to the Law, it's okay, but according to you, it may not be okay. Seek guidance, pray for wisdom and come to your conclusion about whatever it is that you are dealing with. If, however, something does break the Law, there is no question as to its morality because it clearly violates the one and only Law that determines sin. It should be clear when I say, for example, that adultery, in and of itself, violates the Law of brotherly love. Homosexuality in and of itself, does not.

          • appalo L.

            The only thing that changed from the Old law was the way the people showed their love for God. The sins NEVER changed. If they did, that means that God changed and He never does. A sin back then is the same now, it is against God. The blood of Jesus means now all someone has to do to be saved is to ask. And the only way that sinners can be forgiven is to stop their sins, which means don't live the homosexual or any sinful lifestyle, and admit they have sinned and believe with all their hearts of what Jesus did for all of us and ask Jesus in their hearts. Sin of any kind can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. And by the way, I am not condemning anyone, God does. Maybe you should read the New Testament too.

          • Candy Gurtler

            Appalo L, So are you saying I'm sinning everytime I as a woman put on a pair of pants? Or if my husband and I have sex during my monthly cycle? Oh wait you skipped those verses in Leviticus. They are in the same chapter. Read it again. I'm not saying Homosexuality is not a sin…. but if you are going to quote Bible verses as your arguement, then don't use the ones that were for the jews of the old testament who were under the law. There are plenty from the New Testament to choose from. Jesus did come to free us from the law. I eat my meat a little bloody, and I do eat pork, I wash my silverware and plates and hands before eating but I do not do it according to Od Testament Jewish law. And I don't belive that is sinful.

          • appalo L.

            No, I am not saying that you are sinning when you do those things. I am saying that what was a sin then is still a sin now. Those things you mentioned were a test for the Jews at that time and doesn't apply to us now.

          • Candy Gurtler

            You used Leviticus 18:22 as the basis of your arguement. I used Leviticus 18:19. A mere 2 verses prior to yours. So if verse 22 is a sin the verse 19 would be also. Now you backtrack and claim my examples were tests and not sins. By the way I already know the verses that apply and the ones that don't. My point is Leviticus 18 was the LAW. We are no longer under the law. Use the verses that apply. Youre statement that “those things you mentioned were a test for the Jews at that time and doesn't apply to us now” negates your Leviticus 18 arguement.

          • George

            Read John1:1-3 God does not change He”s the same yesterday,today and tomorrow. 1. In the beginning was the Word(Jesus).and the Word was with God,and the Word was God. 2.The same was in the beginning with God. 3.All things were made by him;and without him was not any thing made that was made. Jesus came down from Heaven and shed his blood for our sins. He also gave the ten commandments and the Old Testament to us.He is the spokesman(The Logos)and did everything his Father wanted done. He also said “he came not to destroy the Law but to enhance it”. The whole bible applies to all people, Jesus followed the teachings of the Old Testament because that's all there was at that time and he (The Word).created them through his prophets and apostles.

          • Candy Gurtler

            So George, do you cut the hair at the side of your head? I would hate for you to believe you will go to hell for that because if you continually do it then it is not repentance and means you continue to walk in sin if you believe we are still under the law. And I truly hope none of the females in your household wear pants or cut their hair either. The law was created for us to realize that in our own power we would never be able to live by it. Jesus shed blood was for the very purpose of our forgiveness so that we would not need to be under the law. He made the way for us to be forgiven without having to sacrifice animals to cover our sins. They are not covered anymore they are wiped away. I don't repent when I eat a steak that has a little blood still in it and I will not be sent to hell for it.

          • Candy Gurtler

            Please explain the differance between Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 19. Leviticus 19 has the 10 commandments in it as well as some of the “tests” that you mentioned. Also the sexual relations during your monthly cycle was only 2 verses before your Leviticus 18:22 sin. Then you tell me Leviticus 18:19 is a test not a sin and the second half of Leviticus 19 is a test and not sins but the first half, (the 10 commandments half) would be sins not tests. So make up your mind is it all sin and does it apply or are we no longer under the law and not sunject to the law. By the way I am well aware of the new testament verses that apply. My point is that if you are confused about scripture and what it says your best bet is to NOT use it as an arguement against something.

          • FilmPunk

            Here's the difference. At the time the Jews had no rules, laws or method of self government. They were literally starting from nothing so God gave Moses the 10 Commandments. The first four commandments deal with our relationship with God, the next six deal with our relationship with each other. Then came the Levitical law, this was intended to outline every aspect of their lives. It was meant to protect them from infections, disease, as well as establishing rules for behavior, i.e., capital punishment, stealing, adultery, sexual sins, conflict resolution. The final part outlined how the people and the priests were to come before God; offerings, sacrifices, etc.. At this time in history this was needed to bring order to a group of people who had been living as slaves for last 400 years. Over time, teachers, Pharisees and other religious leaders began to add to the law making it burdensome. Then Jesus shows up and says, “I've come to not only fulfill the law but to free you from it.” That didn't mean that sin would no longer be counted as sin, rather he said, “take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is easy, my burden is light. Jesus abolished the Levitical law by breaking it down to two basic elements, Love God first and with everything you have then love others the same as you love yourself. No more sacrifices, no more circumcision if you want to become a Christ-follower, no more temple tax- you gave gifts out of love not obligation. No more stoning people because of adultery. But he did say, that God looks at a person's heart and that a person's life is a reflection of their heart. Jesus said, that you shouldn't hate in your heart, hate is murder. He said you shouldn't lust in your heart because it leads to sexual sins. He also said, that God hates divorce. He loved those around him, even the sinners. That doesn't mean he accepted their sin, he loved them in spite of it and offered them forgiveness. His last act on the cross was to forgive a thief.

            I guess that's my point, Christ didn't come to make sin irrelevant, he came to free us from effects of sin. If people want to call themselves Christians then the bible says they need to love God and then act like they love God. That means do what he commands. The bible is more focused on what we do than what we don't do. Jesus didn't send a lot time telling us what we shouldn't do he just pounded on what we should do if we love the Father. But just so there is no confusion, you can't say you are a Christ follower if you are engaged in sin that God has clearly identified.

            So can a person who says they love God and is a practicing homosexual go to heaven? The answer is no. That's the same answer the bible gives to a fornicator, adulterer or anyone actively engaged in these types of sin. If a person loves God they will want to please him. It's that simple. The Bible says, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. So to answer your question, you're not sinning because you and your husband have sex during your monthly cycle. Only you know your relationship with Christ, I'm can't judge that but I can say that I'm grateful God loved me enough to send his son to die for me. If sharing that message makes me a bigot then so be it but my hope is people will see Christ and not me. I'm sure that answers your question but I have a feeling you already knew this.

          • Candy Gurtler

            You are absolutely correct. I wasn't arguing the point at all. I just get concerned when people use the Law in Leviticus as the basis of their argument against homosexuality. It seems as though they pick and choose from the law what they think we should follow and what we shouldn't. It usually, but not always, comes from someone who does not really understand or follow the Bible but knows how to look up homosexual in the concordance in the back of one to base their argument on. Those people do more damage than good. Those people are usually the haters that use Christianity to base their argument but aren't true followers of Christ. Unfortunately those are also usually the ones the world sees and associates the rest of us with. Christianity is ABSOLUTELY more about what you do than what you don't do. We have a sinful nature. God knows we are going to sin. If we weren't then there would have been no need for Jesus. The important thing is what we do when we sin. Do we confess it and ask for forgiveness? Or do we continue to sin and try to justify it away. Sorry about the nasty example of the sex during the cycle thing but it was really just to make a point.

          • SoTiredof Ignorants

            Totally agree with you, Candy

          • SoTiredof Ignorants

            LUKE 21:8
            He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.
            Exactly…Phil Robertson is one of these

          • appalo L.

            Here are some I did find in the New Testament: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10.

          • SoTiredof Ignorants

            One of the interpretations of Romans 1:26 ~~~~GOD'S WORD® Translation
            For this reason God allowed their shameful passions to control them. Their women have exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

            So, what are “unnatural “sexual relations?? It can be anything…masturbation, perhaps…or going with other men …who knows, everyone is free to come up with something.

          • appalo L.

            Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Or “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” I do accept all He says.

          • cadte

            well said

          • appalo L.

            Thank you.

          • SoTiredof Ignorants


          • Cowboy Up

            They should not continue to be live in either. Don't forget that part.

          • musiqologist

            Christians were supposed to follow them. The old testament says the laws are forever, Jesus said he came with nothing new and Paul said an old covenant doesn't annul a previous one. Anything different is opinion and false exposition.

          • leecappella

            Matthew 19:16-19. Only the laws based on brotherly love are the law. Everything else that used to be law in the law of Moses are irrelevant (ie. requiring circumcision, etc.).

          • Jake Cole

            The conversation doesn't end there, he tells the young man to follow him: to follow his example and apply it to his life. The young man's self-righteous attitude is betrayed in his exit from the scene.

          • leecappella

            No, sir. The conversation doesn't end there, but, nonetheless, it does not negate what Jesus said, which was to inherit life, the requirement is to love thy neighbor as thyself. And, in case you want to say loving God is the first requirement and not loving thy neighbor, I would say, read Matthew chapter 25, where you will see that that Jesus says when you love your fellow man, you are loving God at the same time. Jesus knew that the Jews held love for God as the first and foremost commandment and they were always trying to find some reason to arrest him because Jesus didn't teach that. Because he didn't teach exactly what the Jewish religious leaders taught, Jesus was not agreeing with them when he said that love of God is the first and foremost commandment. Instead, he told them that love of God is a commandment that should be followed and the second commandment is its equivalent, which is to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said what they expected to hear, but he also took it further, saying that when you love your neighbor as yourself, you will be seen by God as loving God. You love God by loving your fellow man. So, when you love your neighbor as thyself, you are fulfilling the commandment to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.

          • Jake Cole

            No, he was quoting from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which bears study in their context. Jesus was tried for blasphemy, by claiming that he was God, by the Jews and insurrection by the Romans.

          • Jake Cole

            Matthew 25 is a series of contrasts: the virgins and the servants, which culminates in a description of the final judgment which contrasts two lifestyles that were presented in the two preceding parables, and sets up the contrast between a life which reflects the mercy and grace of God. One might could attempt to make the argument you are, but, love for God is not characterized by total obedience to both spirit and letter of the law.

          • leecappella

            Love for God is characterized by love for one's neighbor. When you love your neighbor, you are loving God. I guess, as they say, the bible can be seen differently by different people. Which is why only God, the ultimate and infallible interpreter, is the only one fit to judge.

          • FilmPunk

            The jews arrested jesus because he was upsetting the apple cart. They wanted a ruler, a deliverer from Roman, and Jesus only offered deliverance from sin and death through is sacrifice.

            Keep this in mind. If you want to really see what Jesus had to say about who are the true believers then read John 15-17. He starts by discussing abiding in him. That literally means to dwell with. Can a person love God and knowingly participate in sin? The answer is no.

          • leecappella

            Jesus upset the apple cart in various ways…Anyone who loves is of God and God is in them. This is abiding in him. Love others and, thereby, fulfill the Law of loving others. Fulfill the Law of loving others and you are justified before God for being a doer of the Law, instead of being a law breaker (Romans 2:13). Those who love are abiding in God because God is love. God considers those who love others in altruism, benevolence, and loving kindness as the righteous. Those who do not follow the Law and love others in altruism, benevolence, and loving kindness are considered the unrighteous (See Matthew chapter 25). You can direct me to John 15-17 and anywhere else in the bible. It will not change what I am saying.

            A person can love God and, knowingly, participate in sin. However, if they truly love God, they would not continue in their sin. I imagine that is your point. I would agree with you. I would also direct you to Romans chapter 14 as an example of things that do not violate the Law of brotherly love and, thus, are lawful. Lawful things do not break the Law that leads to inheriting life, but some lawful things are seen as a sin to some people, despite the fact that the lawful things don't violate the one and only Law that determines sin. Simply put, I believe God is okay with certain things that some people are not okay with. However, God is not okay with anything that is unloving and a violation of loving thy neighbor.

          • Candy Gurtler

            The point is that we are to love God above all else. If we are following our fleshly nature then we are in that moment putting our own desires above God. We are fulfilling our desire and not God's. God has a plan for us but if we continue to follow after what makes us feel good then we will never see it and fulfill the purpose he has created us for. Take up your cross…die to sin.. seek first the kingdom of God. Its ALL about loving God above yourself.

          • leecappella

            What it sounds like you're saying, Candy, is this: If you're a woman who falls in love with a man and marries him, you are not following your fleshly nature. If a man falls in love with a man and they marry, they are following their fleshly nature. Something does not seem right with that analogy. I believe sin, to God, is based on either keeping the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself (ie. not sinning) or breaking the Law of loving thy neighbor (ie. sinning).

          • FilmPunk

            Leecappella, again you're close but not completely right. God instituted marriage as a man and a woman. It is a natural desire for a man and a woman to want to be together but as outlined in scripture men with men and women with women is unnatural and therefore sinful. I think the scripture is super clear on this and you seem to be a person that has read a great deal of scripture.

          • leecappella

            I'm not completely right, FilmPunk, because it's not how you see things. No doubt, you're coming from the view that how you see things is how God sees things, but, then again, I believe the same in regards to my beliefs. Thus, neither of us really know. We just believe we know and have faith about what we claim to know:) I'm sure we both have very good reasons for believing as we do.

          • FilmPunk

            I appreciate your attitude and I would say that you're right. What I contend is that we can take the bible literally and that is completely inspired by God. If I start there then I know the Bible will always interpret itself. That being said, God's views on marriage, sex, family, divorce, are pretty clear.

          • leecappella

            Not even Jesus meant things literally 100% of the time. There is always more than one way of seeing something. Especially, when it involves fallible humans from our day and time and the ancient world. We will probably never agree, but we both love God and believe as we do because of our love for God. And, probably the most important thing among discussions like these is not who is right, but that we love one another no matter, regardless of difference. Having said that, I appreciate your attitude as well:)

          • Candy Gurtler

            If you are a woman and you fall in love with a man you better be sure you have God's approval before you marry him. Not all straight relationships were meant to be either. What I am saying is if you are putting God first in your life, and I mean truly putting him first, then you will know which partner is the one he has chosen for you. God sees the whole picture we only see a part of it, he knows who our perfect partner is. If you are in the wrong relationship of any kind you are following your fleshly nature. I do not believe we are under the law remember. God's will for my life is not the same as it is for you. He judges the heart. Is your heart bent towards God or is it bent towards yourself. If you are in a gay relationship and you have brought it before God and you know in your heart God has chosen that person for you and that you are not just seeking what feels good for you then that is between you and God. But, sex between two people of any kind, outside of marriage, which is a covenant between you, your partner and God is a sin. I also believe that there is a difference between being married in the eyes of the law, (law of the land) and the eyes of God. The eyes of God is what matters not the eyes of the law of the land.

          • leecappella

            I don't think that if a person is in a relationship and it does not work out, then that automatically means, they were following their flesh. A lot of people get married, thanking and giving credit to God for their relationship and it still doesn't work out. So, I don't agree with you there. I'm sure we do see eye to eye on some things.

            For example, you say, if a person is gay and they have brought it before God and they feel that their same gender partner is the person God has chosen for them, then it's between them and God. I agree with that. This, believe it or not, makes me think of the creation story. Eve was not suitable for the Adam because of her femininity. She was suitable for the Adam because she was of the same flesh. She was suitable because she was human, unlike any of animals in the story.

            Gay people are merely doing what everyone else does: They are seeking a suitable helpmate. A woman is not a suitable mate for a gay man. A man is not a suitable mate for a lesbian. It sounds like you believe that if a man wants to marry a man, then that is between them and God. That's good, if that's the case. If one straight woman wants to be allowed to marry the person of her choosing, then in order to love her neighbor as she loves herself, she should be willing to allow her gay neighbor to do the same. It would not be a just thing for you to be given the opportunity to choose who you want to marry while an equal fellow man is denied the very same opportunity.

            Based on my understanding of what the bible says, God's Law of morality is based on the commands that are related to how you treat people. The Law of loving others as thyself is the one and only Law. There is no other Law and if there is, it also is summed up in love thy neighbor as thyself. The bible teaches this. As I see it, if anyone believes being gay is a sin or being in a gay relationship is a sin, it is only a sin to them, not God. That is because being gay and being in a gay relationship does not break the one and only Law. Some will say, as you have, that sex outside of marriage is a sin. To me, that is only true for those who believe it. The Law does not call sex outside of marriage to be a sin because sex outside of marriage does not cause harm to one's neighbor. As a result, it is within the Law and, thereby, it is lawful. Sex outside of one's own marriage is the issue of the bible because if you're married and you have sex with someone other than your spouse, you have brought harm to your neighbor. If you sleep with another man's wife, you have brought harm to your neighbor. Sex between two single persons brings harm to no one. It is only an issue if to he or she that makes it an issue. It's not a an issue to the Law because it does not violate any command in the Law.

          • Candy Gurtler

            Sex outside of marriage does harm you and your neighbor( the neighbor you are engaging in sex with). How much baggage is brought into relationships because of sex outside of marriage. Not only diseases, or sterility because of diseases, but emotional baggage, just for a few examples. How much of a person's self worth can be damaged because of inappropriate sexual relationships before joining with the partner they should have waited for? These are not the only reasons just some of them. God does not want us to enter into relationships damaged by our past relationships. Those things cause struggles that current relationships cannot always recover from. Also marriage is work and God wants us to put the work into them to grow them. We often expect things to just happen on their own and when we don't put the work into them demanded we say God didn't really want this relationship, or God was wrong, or maybe I didn't really hear from him about this relationship and made a mistake. Relationships do fail all the time but if we didn't abandon them when they became too hard, and they were the ones God wanted us in to begin with then they wouldn't have.

            “The Law of loving others as thyself is the one and only Law.” I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there.

            Matthew 22:36-40
            “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. …

            I'm afraid you keep forgetting that part.

            “It sounds like you believe that if a man wants to marry a man, then that is between them and God. That's good, if that's the case. If one straight woman wants to be allowed to marry the person of her choosing, then in order to love her neighbor as she loves herself, she should be willing to allow her gay neighbor to do the same. It would not be a just thing for you to be given the opportunity to choose who you want to marry while an equal fellow man is denied the very same opportunity.”
            I personally never claimed to have the authority to approve or deny anyone of marrying anyone they choose to. I simply warn of the need to be sure the person you choose is the person God has chosen for you first.

          • leecappella

            What you are saying could apply to anyone, married or single. Baggage is brought into just about every relationship, whether between dating single people or between married persons. There could be two single virgins who get married to one another and still they will be bringing baggage into their relationship.What you are saying seems like a generalization of life and the issues that can arise in one's life from any relationship, married or single. You can even have baggage prior to ever being in a relationship. A person's self worth can be damaged whether they are single or in a relationship. Humans don't avoid damaging their self confidence or self worth by being 100% sure before marrying. Their self worth could still be damaged by some other means even while married to the right person. Life has shown us this. I agree with you about working on your marriage/relationship. I agree with you about not bringing relationship baggage into a new relationship. However, baggage can enter one's life, even if not from a relationship standpoint. Some other aspect of life can affect us and give us baggage. My point is marrying the right person for you does not make you immune to having baggage. If your'e with the right person, it may help you deal with the baggage better, but I don't think it prevents you from being baggage free.

            Regarding the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself: I have not forgotten the part of the first and greatest commandment. I don't think you've read everything I've posted. That's okay. I can be long winded. LOL.

            In Koine Greek, this is what Jesus said:

            And Jesus answered him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment . The second is its equivalent, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself'…”

            I believe Jesus said these words after it was attempted upon him to catch him in some way to find reason to arrest him. Jesus knew that loving God was the first and greatest commandment to the Jews. They cited the Shema twice a day as a way of keeping that commandment in their mind. So, Jesus answered the question in a way that appeased them, but he also took his answer further by saying when you love your neighbor you are loving God with your whole heart, soul, and mind because loving thy neighbor is the equivalent to loving God. As I've said before, Matthew chapter 25 supports this view because it is in that chapter that Jesus says the righteous are those who love their neighbor via acts of altruism, benevolence, and loving kindness. That chapter also reiterates the view that when you love your fellow man, you are loving God, which is what Jesus said in the verses you quoted to me. It's right there, but since you (and others) have not been taught this, you do not see it, nor do you believe it. But, I am telling you out of love that love is the fulfillment of the Law. That means nothing else fulfills the Law except love itself for one's fellow man. Why that is so hard to believe for many, I don't know. I mean, I guess i do know why, partially, but on the other hand, I don't. It's one of those kinds of things:) Have a good day/night. If I see another posted reply to me, I will reply. I have so many to reply to:)

          • Candy Gurtler

            I do not disagree that self worth can be damaged in different ways. But when you give the most intimate part of yourself to someone, and then to another, and then to another it will damage you and your perception of what God created sex for. It was created so that you could give yourself totally to 1 person in a way that would not be given to another. And would create a bond that would be stronger. Sex for recreation causes you to lose that “specialness” that it was designed for. Granted it was also created for the purpose of procreation, I am not denying that. But that was not the whole purpose. I agree with you that baggage can enter a relationship whether you are a virgin or not but should we at least respect ourselves and our partners enough to bring as little baggage as possible that we have control of? That particular type of baggage is completely in your control. No one is baggage free and I did not mean to imply that there would ever be such a thing as a baggage free relationship.
            If you love your neighbor (partner) with your whole heart , mind and soul, then you will not want to engage in behaviors that could potentially damage them. Most women associate sex with love and acceptance. If you are going to a bar to pick someone up to satisfy your sexual desire you are not showing them respect or love. They are also not showing themselves respect or love. In the end it will damage them so you have not shown love to your neighbor. Even if they believe they just wanted to satisfy their sexual desires also. Because women associate sex with love it damages them. You can say I am generalizing if you choose but truthfully speak to any woman who is willing to talk about it and they will tell you they regret having treated sex in the past as entertainment or just a way to fill a physical “need”.
            I agree with you that love is the fulfillment of the law. I do not see how recreational sex or even sex between a couple who will not make that final commitment of marriage to one another is respectful and not hurtful and is not sinful. It is selfish, not selfless. Love is selfless. If you love someone and want to engage in a sexual relationship with them then give them the respect of making a full commitment to them and not only half a commitment that can be more easily broken. If you are not sure then ask God. If you are still unsure then don't do it. If you do then you are not loving that person you are loving yourself, and not in the biblical way of loving your neighbor as yourself, in the sinful, selfish wow this apple looks tasty way. I know God said not to eat it but it sure looks good, and smells good and the snake says it really is ok because its not gonna hurt anyone.

            Also, you have not addressed how STD's can affect relationships and how they most likely would have never even existed if humans engaged in monogamous relationships. I do realize that the pagans of days gone by did not engage in monogamous relationships but it did seem unfair to blame it solely on them. We were told to come out and be separate. How can we be separate if we treat each other with the same disrespect and behave in the same manners as the world?
            BTW this conversation has been thoughtful and respectful and I appreciate that.

          • leecappella

            Hi, Candy.

            Paul taught that there are things that are lawful, but not all lawful things are beneficial. That means, within the guidelines of the Law of loving others, we can do what we want, but some of our decisions may not always be the best ones. I might add that the Law of love is called the Law of liberty because it has freed all of humanity from enslavement to religious rules and regulations. Sometimes, as humans, we don't know until after we've done what we've done that our actions weren't beneficial to us. I don't mean the selfish kind of beneficial. I mean the kind that helps us grow in love. Paul, I find, was concerned about humans using their bodies for instruments of loving kindness (not unkindness) because doing so meant we were keeping the commandments required by the Law of love. I believe Paul believed that those who follow Christ are enslaved to the Law of loving others.

            I won't pretend to know the history of STD's and when they first arrived on the scene. However, the case today is one that does not discriminate. Diseases can occur and appear in anyone's life. A monogamous relationship is ideal and I would assume that an STD would not show up in a monogamous relationship. However, I would imagine that if neither partner has never been tested prior to their monogamous relationship, it could be possible that one or both of them could have an STD, unknowingly. Some STDs, I believe, have no symptoms. The ideal would be to be a virgin before finding “the one”, but that is a rarity nowadays.

            I think being separate from the world is more along the lines of the righteous versus the unrighteous. I'm not speaking about Christians versus non-Christians. I do not believe people enter heaven based on whether or not they are a Christian or not. To be separate is to be righteous. To be righteous is to love others in altruism, benevolence, and loving kindness. This is what Jesus says in Matthew chapter 25. The unrighteous are those who do the opposite of the righteous. This is the difference between those of this world and those not of this world, IMHO. BTW, I also appreciate and respect the conversations we've been having. Two can disagree and be respectful and appreciative towards one another. We are proof of that:)

          • Candy Gurtler

            I don't necessarily believe in religious rules and regulations either. However, I believe that the Bible is very clear on certain sins. 1 Timothy1:9-11, Romans 1: 28-32, Romans 13:12-14, 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10&18, 1 Corinthians 7:2, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5-6, 1 Thessalonians 4:3. I do realize that is a lot of verses but much of it is the same. leads me to believe if it is repeated several times then it must be important.

            I agree “Sometimes, as humans, we don't know until after we've done what we've done that our actions weren't beneficial to us.” Which is the reason that God has spelled out for us some of the sins that we may not recognize immediately but that will harm us/or our brothers in the end.

            They are not the only sins but are examples to be used as a guideline for us.

            “I do not believe people enter heaven based on whether or not they are a Christian or not.” I', afraid I have to disagree with you completely on this one. I do not believe it is a doctrine that will get you into heaven , but Jesus was very clear on this one. Being a Christian is simply being a Christ follower.

            John 14:6
            New International Version (NIV)
            6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

            John 3:16
            New International Version (NIV)
            16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

            If you do not accept him as the son of God, who died for the forgiveness of sins, then you will not see Heaven.

            and also Romans 3:21-26. Righteousness is through Christ.

            “The righteous love others as self.” That is because they are in Christ.

          • leecappella

            Hi, Candy.

            I think your reply to me from 5 days ago is the last reply I have to make and I will be done with all my inbox notifications.

            When I say religious rules and regulations, I am referring to things people do or don't do because they believe that they have to when, according to the Law, they don't have to be concerned with such things. I think I've already spoken about what most of your verse references touch on, but I will, briefly, repeat:

            1 Timothy 1:9-11: Paul is dedicated to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This list is pretty similar to the one in 1 Corinthians 6:9. As I explained to someone else here, 1 Corinthians 6:9, in Koine or common Greek, begins with saying, “…Don't you know that those who lack altruism cannot enter the kingdom of heaven?…” Paul is wanting people to be doers of the Law, which is to love thy neighbor as thyself. So, the things he lists in the verses are all regarding things, in Paul's mind, that causes people to break the Law of showing loving kindness to their fellow man. Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka are not on this list:)

            Romans 1:28-32 seems self evident that these are things opposite of loving thy fellow man. Paul thought idolatry caused those involved in idolatry to mistreat others. The kinds of things that took place in idolatrous practices attested to this view. Murders, sacrificing children, infidelity, etc. are things that idolaters did which violated the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself.

            Romans 13:12-14 speaks of things that can cause unloving acts towards another fellow human being.

            1 Corinthians 5:9-11 is just a reiteration of the other verses previously mentioned above.

            1 Corinthians 6:9-10&18 all refer to what Paul believes involves people who are unrighteous or who lack loving kindness, altruism, and benevolence for their fellow man.

            1 Corinthians 7:2 says to avoid having someone else's husband or wife, have your own. To sleep with someone who belongs to another is a violation of brotherly love.

            Galatians 5:19 is concluding that any injustice towards one's neighbor or anything that could cause injustice towards one's neighbor is a manifestation of what the flesh wants. To him, selfishness and injustice are of the flesh. Love and loving kindness towards others is of the spirit.

            Ephesians 5:5 is just a brief repeat of 1 Corinthians 6:9.

            Colossians 3:5-6 says to abstain from selfish things of the flesh that do and can cause the mistreatment of others. Obedient children do what the Law requires and they love one another. Disobedient children suffer God's punishment of wrath.

            1 Thessalonians 4:3 says abstain from betraying your brother and taking someone else's husband or wife.

            Regarding being a Christ follower: From my viewpoint, Jesus set the Law as loving others. Love one another is repeated over and over because it is the Law of Christ. It is the royal Law as James 2:8 states. It's royal because it is the Messianic King's Law that he uttered as the Law, minus any works found in the law of Moses. Since loving others is the Law, those who are doers of the Law (Romans 2:13) are justified before God and are seen as Christ followers. Being a follower of Christ is not so much about having the title of Christian. I believe God could care less about what you refer to yourself as. The bottom line of it is are you being a doer of the Law. If you are, but you don't call yourself a Christian, I say, that's okay because the Law does not require a person to be called a Christian. Only Christian seem to require that. If you're a Christian, yet you do not love others, will being a Christian save you? My answer is no because you disobeyed the Law and what the Law said to do. Simply put, if you practice benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness towards your fellow man, you are seen by Christ as a follower of his. You are, figuratively, believing in Jesus because you are seen as doing what he said to do in order to inherit life, regardless if you're a Christian or not. This, to me, is the meaning of believing in Jesus: doing what he said and living accordingly, regardless of your religious denomination or affiliation. Being a Christian means nothing if the Christian does not love others as self.

            The righteous love others as self because they are in Christ. They are in Christ because of the fact that they love others. “…I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me..” is simply another way of Jesus saying, “…I have given and shown you the way to live and treat others. My way is the way. You need not do anything else, but love others as I have loved you. What I say is the truth, for I am the truth. Do this and you shall live..”

            I hope this explains where I am coming from. Of course, just like you, this is all just my own personal opinion of faith. Have a nice day!

          • Candy Gurtler

            I understand there will be no more responses and I'm ok with that. i have enjoyed our convesation and wanted to say thank you again for keeping it respectful. I also wanted to say that being a Christian simply is a label, but the meaning behind the label is that you believe Christ was The Son of God in whom you must believe. There is no point in following him if you do not believe that. So, I will ask you this and you need only answer it to God and within yourself, not to me. Do you believe Jesus was God's one and only begotten son who died for the forgiveness of our sins. I hope that you do. As a Christian I believe that is the requirement to entering Heaven. All these other things we discussed regarding the law cannot be accomplished on our own without that first and most important truth. If we practice the law but do not believe in Christ then we are simply practicing a religion and not entering into a relationship with our creator. That was the purpose of Christ. To bridge that gap that sin caused between us and our creator.

          • leecappella

            Hi, again, Candy.

            That's not what I meant. I will, happily, reply to anyone who sends me a posting. I just meant that I had a lot of inbox notifications from people who replied to me and, at the time, yours was the last one I had to respond to, after having gone through a good number of them already. LOL.

            I do understand that Christians believe that Christ was the Son of God. In Matthew 3:17, Jesus is referred to as the Son via the voice from heaven. I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. However, a person can still follow Jesus even if they do not believe that he is the Son of God. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God is not a requirement to inheriting life. If it were, I believe, Jesus would have told the man it was in Matthew 19:16-19), but he did not. Confessing Christ as Lord, however, is something everyone will, eventually, do in the future. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess because every knee and every tongue will be reconciled back to God. All in due time. Everyone in their own order (1 Corinthians 15:22-23).

            I believe Jesus sees every person who practices benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness as his followers. This is, basically, what he said in Matthew chapter 25. Some are concerned about what I am saying because I am not putting loving God above loving neighbor. However, that is because Jesus equates loving one's neighbor with loving God. That is, if you love your neighbor in benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness, you are seen by God as loving God. And, Jesus sees your love for your fellow man as you loving him as well. So, you see, if you are practicing the Law of brotherly love, you are not seen as practicing a religion. God sees it as you loving him and Jesus sees it as you loving him to. The bible says, if you do not love your brother, you then do not love God. Thus, love of God begins with loving your brother. And, everyone is your brother.

            Even Satan believes Jesus is the Son of God, but Satan does not practice loving kindness. Jesus said that a person has to keep the commandments found in the Justices in order to inherit life immediately. If they do not, they will not inherit life in the age to come. Instead, they suffer temporary punishment in Gehenna before being reconciled back to God in the following age. There are three stages of the ages, but I won't get into that.

            Candy, i do appreciate you coming to me from the basis of what you personally believe. However, you must understand that what you believe is for you to live by. Not me. I have to live according to my faith even if it differs from yours or another's. We both believe in Jesus, but if we both produced a movie about Jesus and his message, we both would, likely, present it differently. That is to be expected as we all are not the same person and we have unique perceptions, perspectives, and experiences. Even still, I love you. Thanks for the great conversation and civil responses.

          • leecappella

            Hi, again, Candy.

            That's not what I meant. I will, happily, reply to anyone
            who sends me a posting. I just meant that I had a lot of inbox notifications from people who replied to me and, at the time, yours was the last one I had to respond to, after having gone through a good number of them already. LOL.

            I do understand that Christians believe that Christ was the
            Son of God. In Matthew 3:17, Jesus is referred to as the Son via the voice from heaven. I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. However, a person can still follow Jesus even if they do not believe that he is the Son of God. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God is not a requirement to inheriting life. If it were, I believe, Jesus would have told the man it was in Matthew 19:16-19), but he did not. Confessing Christ as Lord, however, is something everyone will, eventually, do in the future. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess because every knee and every tongue will be reconciled back to God. All in due
            time. Everyone in their own order (1 Corinthians 15:22-23).

            I believe Jesus sees every person who practices benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness as his followers. This is, basically, what he said in Matthew chapter 25. Some are concerned about what I am saying because I am not putting loving God above loving neighbor. However, that is because Jesus equates loving one's neighbor with loving God. That is, if you love your
            neighbor in benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness, you are seen by God as loving God. And, Jesus sees your love for your fellow man as you loving him as well. So, you see, if you are practicing the Law of brotherly love, you are not seen as practicing a religion. God sees it as you loving him and Jesus sees it as you loving him to. The bible says, if you do not love your brother, you then do not love God. Thus, love of God begins with loving your brother. And,
            everyone is your brother.

            Even Satan believes Jesus is the Son of God, but Satan does not practice loving kindness. Jesus said that a person has to keep the commandments found in the Justices in order to inherit life immediately. If they do not, they will not inherit life in the age to come. Instead, they suffer temporary punishment in Gehenna before being reconciled back to God in the following age. There are three stages of the ages, but I won't get into that.

            Candy, i do appreciate you coming to me from the basis of
            what you personally believe. However, you must understand that what you believe is for you to live by. Not me. I have to live according to my faith even if it
            differs from yours or another's. We both believe in Jesus, but if we both produced a movie about Jesus and his message, we both would, likely, present it
            differently. That is to be expected as we all are not the same person and we have unique perceptions, perspectives, and experiences. Even still, I love you.
            Thanks for the great conversation and civil responses.

          • leecappella


          • leecappella


          • leecappella

            Hi, again, Candy.

            That's not what I meant. I will, happily, reply to anyone
            who sends me a posting. I just meant that I had a lot of inbox notifications
            from people who replied to me and, at the time, yours was the last one I had to
            respond to, after having gone through a good number of them already. LOL.

            I do understand that Christians believe that Christ was the
            Son of God. In Matthew 3:17, Jesus is referred to as the Son via the voice from
            heaven. I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. However, a person can still
            follow Jesus even if they do not believe that he is the Son of God. Believing
            that Jesus is the Son of God is not a requirement to inheriting life. If it
            were, I believe, Jesus would have told the man it was in Matthew 19:16-19), but
            he did not. Confessing Christ as Lord, however, is something everyone will,
            eventually, do in the future. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess
            because every knee and every tongue will be reconciled back to God. All in due
            time. Everyone in their own order (1 Corinthians 15:22-23).

            I believe Jesus sees every person who practices benevolence,
            altruism, and loving kindness as his followers. This is, basically, what he
            said in Matthew chapter 25. Some are concerned about what I am saying because I
            am not putting loving God above loving neighbor. However, that is because Jesus
            equates loving one's neighbor with loving God. That is, if you love your
            neighbor in benevolence, altruism, and loving kindness, you are seen by God as
            loving God. And, Jesus sees your love for your fellow man as you loving him as
            well. So, you see, if you are practicing the Law of brotherly love, you are not
            seen as practicing a religion. God sees it as you loving him and Jesus sees it
            as you loving him to. The bible says, if you do not love your brother, you then
            do not love God. Thus, love of God begins with loving your brother. And,
            everyone is your brother.

            Even Satan believes Jesus is the Son of God, but Satan does
            not practice loving kindness. Jesus said that a person has to keep the
            commandments found in the Justices in order to inherit life immediately. If
            they do not, they will not inherit life in the age to come. Instead, they
            suffer temporary punishment in Gehenna before being reconciled back to God in
            the following age. There are three stages of the ages, but I won't get into

            Candy, i do appreciate you coming to me from the basis of
            what you personally believe. However, you must understand that what you believe
            is for you to live by. Not me. I have to live according to my faith even if it
            differs from yours or another's. We both believe in Jesus, but if we both
            produced a movie about Jesus and his message, we both would, likely, present it
            differently. That is to be expected as we all are not the same person and we have
            unique perceptions, perspectives, and experiences. Even still, I love you.
            Thanks for the great conversation and civil responses.

          • leecappella

            I would agree, halfway, here with you, Sean. But, that's okay. We can disagree because none of us are all knowing. However, based on my studies, Jesus (as well as Paul) taught that if someone depends on the law of Moses, they have to adhere to all of the laws and commands in the law of Moses. The other choice is to believe in Jesus and do what he says brings salvation, which is to follow the King's royal law of loving others as thyself. This law is only based on how you treat your neighbor and not on works (ie. laws and commands that have nothing to do with how you treat your neighbor). That's what works actually are. See Romans 2:13 and compare it to Romans 3:20. Romans 2:13 refers to the law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 3:20 refers to all of the other commands that the Jews thought had to be done (because they were Jews) that have nothing to do with how you treat your fellow man. Believing in Jesus means to choose what he said save and no other way. He said loving thy neighbor as thyself is the narrow road to life. Narrow, indeed, because not many believed it then. Not many believe it today.

            Regarding the sin of gays being the same as adulterers, fornicators, etc., I disagree with this because being a homosexual or being in a homosexual relationship is not a violation of the law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. It's the reason why Paul could say that circumcision wasn't a requirement of the law because it has nothing do with how you treat your fellow man. Being gay or being in a gay relationship has no bearing on if a person can be a doer of the law and love their fellow man. Adultery, on the other hand, does. Adultery is a violation of one's spouse. It's also a betrayal of another man's or another woman's spouse. This was Paul's concern in 1 Corinthians 6:9: people violating the law of Christ and doing the opposite of loving their brother. It wasn't sex outside of marriage (as understood today) that Paul was addressing. He was addressing things that violated love for one's fellow man. He addressed sex outside of one's own marriage, as well as having sex with another man's wife. Both violate the law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. Sex between unmarried persons does not.

          • Jake Cole

            It is however a violation of the primary clause: love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, something that is proven, on our part, through obedience to the first command.

          • leecappella

            It, referring to what?

          • Jake Cole

            The law is summed up in two statements:
            1. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and…
            2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

            One is evidenced through obedience to the commands of God, which allows one to fulfill Two through acts of justice and mercy. You can't have one without the other. The latter is dictated by the former, after all they are the summary of the Decalogue: the first four dealing with God, the last six with man. God established the principle for sexual relationships in the beginning (male and female), in order to fulfill his command to “be fruitful and multiply in order to subdue the earth”. You appear to have been trying to equate a monogamous homosexual relationship with a monogamous heterosexual relationship. There is no grounds for comparison because they are inherently different, something simple understanding of biology makes abundantly clear, because all you have to do is answer the question: “which of those two relationships best, optimally, can most certainly fulfill that command?”

          • leecappella

            According to Romans 13, the Law is summed up in this: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. It doesn't mention loving God because when you love others, you are loving God. That is what Jesus said, in Koine Greek, when he said the first commandment is to love God the second is like it. ‘Is like it', in Koine Greek, means, ‘is its equivalent'. The law is not the law of Moses. The Law is the royal Law, which is based only on the commands regarding how you treat your fellow man . If there is any other command, even of loving God, it is summed up in love thy neighbor as thyself. Just what I get out of it.

            The command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ is not something I find relevant towards invalidating homosexual relationships. This is so because it makes it sound like if a couple cannot have children, then their relationship is not valid and, thus unnecessary. Two males in a monogamous relationship cannot procreate. Two women in a monogamous cannot procreate. And, in some cases, a man and woman in a monogamous relationship cannot procreate. The ability to procreate is not a deciding factor for what is moral or immoral. The deciding factor has already been established and that deciding factor is to owe no man anything except to love one another. He that loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law. What if he who fulfills the Law does not procreate? So, what! The Law is not based on one's ability to procreate. It's based on their ability to love their fellow man as the righteous are known for doing, as exemplified in Matthew chapter 25.

          • Jake Cole

            Well, let's examine the passage of Romans that you are proof-texting. Romans 13:9, hmmm, it says “The commandments, YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, YOU SHALL NOT COVET, and if there is anything other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” Now, what is Paul talking about, or has he been talking about leading up to this point? Hmmm. Romans 13:1, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Paul goes on to explain the purposes of good government, that they exist to protect the good and punish evil. He then goes on to commend the Roman church to “Render whatever is due, be it taxes, or customs, respect, or special honor; and owe nothing to anyone but love (agapân-love in a social or moral sense), because love fulfills the law.” Which begs the question, “which law?” Paul answers it by quoting the basis of Jewish criminal law, five of the Decalogue that deal with the relationships between people. So again he commends his readers to wake up, for the time to do the right thing is at hand, to walk properly, using terms familiar to the Gentiles in their midst, avoiding the rowdy parties that were filled with drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and usually ended in fights and anger, but to embody their Lord Christ. So, nope, it's about behavior that makes a person a good citizen and a better witness. See it's important to read everything in its context, to have a good hermeneutical practice.

            It is VERY important and more than invalidates it, and whether or not a heterosexual couple can procreate is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is this: God made male and female, so by definition, by design, and by custom, that arrangement is the only means to procreate and foster the next generation, it becomes, by default, the only means by which to express human sexuality because it is the only means to fulfill that command. Christ echoes this by repeating the fact of that design in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, by quoting from Genesis to make his point when questioned about divorce: one man, one woman, for life. And before you go off on that issue, reference my comments that started this conversation.

          • leecappella

            Hi, Jake!

            How are you? Hope well. Looking over your reply to me from 11 days ago, I can see that, for some reason, you think that what Paul has to say about government makes everything thing I've said up until now irrelevant, but I couldn't disagree with you more.You're going to have to explain your side more, if you'd like, because I don't get the point that you're trying to make with Romans 13:1.

            Paul is still committed to the Law, which is the Law based only on the commands related to how you treat your fellow man. He says that the government is appointed by God and is, therefore, an agent of God. It exists to make sure that humans are treating each other in ways that manifest altruism, benevolence, and loving kindness, as opposed to malicious and harmful actions towards one another. He says that those who do good should have no fear of the government because government wants to keep goodness active and cease evil. I believe that Paul was so focused on love being the fulfillment of the Law, because Christ said so, that Paul makes sure it is a point in just about everything he talks about, including the government as agents of God for making sure people treat one another in love and not in unloving ways.

            Regarding procreation: If the ability to procreate is irrelevant, then it should not be brought up at all in a discussion about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. That God made male and female is a better thing to bring to the discussion, but it's not one that would make me change my views. It still sounds like you regard being able to procreate as being relevant. But, being able to have children or not have children does not determine the morality of a couple's relationship, which is why I used the example of a male and female couple that is unable to procreate or chooses not to procreate. If having children is a command, then every male/female couple should be expected to procreate, but I doubt that is a sentiment shared by many, Christian or non-Christian.

            Jesus’ reference to the creation story has nothing to do with the validity of homosexual relationships. It would if the context of his discussion was can a man marry another man, but that was not the topic of discussion. The issue was divorce, so Jesus quotes words from the creation story regarding how a man should cleave to his wife, as opposed to looking for any reason to leave her. Jesus quotes words about not putting asunder what God joined together. It is true that God created male and female. This, however, as I see it, has nothing to do with homosexual relationships. The purpose of the creation story is not to let its readers know what relationships are allowed and which are not. It's purpose is to let its readers know how things in the world came into existence. The story wasn't written at the same time that the earth, the animals, and humanity was being created. It was written after the fact. It's a story about creation after creation was already in existence, God did make Adam and Eve, but God also made Adam and Steve as well. God made all of humanity! The creation story does not have Adam and Steve in it because it wouldn't be an accurate creation story if there were two males in the story and no female. A story like that wouldn't make any sense when, during the writing of the story, females existed. There would be no reference to how the female came into existence. There would need to be a female reference, since females are a part of humanity and they existed during the time the story was written.

            I hope this explains my side. I speculate that you will not agree with it, but I do hope that I have explained it to the point that you get where I am coming from. Have a great day!

          • Jake Cole

            Hello Lee,
            Yes, I am well, tired but well.
            In regard to the point that I was attempting to make about Romans 13, I thought that it was fairly straight forward, but in hindsight I did leave off a key element of the point that I was trying to make, aside from the fault of proof-texting, but the point was this: that Paul, in writing to the Roman church, which consisted primarily of Jewish believers, was attempting to assuage any fears of licentious behavior that might have been present in the lives of Gentile believers was allowed, which is why Paul assured them of the remaining enforcement of the moral commandments (the Covenant consisted of three parts ceremonial, civil, and moral: the ceremonial, specific to Judaism; the civil, specific to Israel as a national entity; the moral, which is implied to all—something that is important to know and understand and is made abundantly clear in Romans 3:23) which was why, in Romans 6:1&2, Paul says, “What shall we say then shall we continue in sin (where elsewhere Paul said that the law is our teacher that we may know what sin and it is and the penalty it requires) that grace may abound? Certainly not!” Keep in mind the culture that the Roman church was in, a licentious and debauched culture where sexual anarchy and perversion abounded not only in temples but on the very streets those believers had to walk down every day, and if one misunderstood the meaning of grace (that by faith in Christ sins are forgiven) then some may have thrown off the fetters of good sense and caved to their flesh and others refused to come out. Romans 13 in an admonishment to the believers that just because the government permits something, and is an agent of God’s greater rule, that it does not have the right or power to do so, by quoting from both the Decalogue and using the summary command from Leviticus 19:18, which any good Jew would have immediately recognized and reflected on that passage which immediately states afterward: “I am the LORD; you shall keep my statutes”, and the commands that came directly before. Looking at what I was saying, that seems to be the direction that I was heading.
            As to whether or not Jesus was addressing “the validity of homosexual relationships”, it has everything to do with it. While he was addressing one issue, that of divorce, he draws from the example of creation, asserting the boundaries of human sexual relationships: one man, one woman, for life, and when questioned on the issue by his own disciples he basically tells them, using figurative language, that if someone can’t accept what he has said, since he was speaking in his authority as God, they need to have themselves castrated (Matthew 19:12). It sounds extreme, because it was, that’s how seriously God takes the gift of sexuality he has given man and has dealt so severely with the abuses of it (incest, adultery, bestiality and, yes, homosexuality in deed if not word, read Leviticus 18, it is an indictment against the nations who practiced those things) throughout history.
            Now, as to why I said that procreation is irrelevant to the argument, because it settles the argument. Sex was designed for procreation (Genesis 1:28). Fortunately, He also made it enjoyable (unless you’re married to an ugly woman [just kidding]—which can be ugly in attitude) so that those engaging in it would develop an emotional attachment to one another, to desire to stay together and rear their offspring. Now, while there are couples who cannot have children, which is not their fault because there may be medical considerations in place that prevent it (like my wife and I). Homosexual couples, by nature and definition, cannot produce the next generation, which is their fault. Something must be imported into their relationship in order to accomplish that task, and if they have to go outside of what they consider (<==see that word) to be natural to them, to acquire what they cannot produce on their own, then they are intruding into what is natural for others, they are in fact going against nature to acquire something that they could have through the proper means, but that is for a very small minority, the rest could care less. The creation story operates in multiple ways, the least of which is to tell us whose idea it was to come up with the sexual faculties as well as how to use them. So Eve was for Adam; Steve needs to move the hell along and find his own woman. But Lee, this isn’t my opinion, this is God’s. God is the full and final authority, and you either get with the program or you get left behind.
            This has been fun, its serious stuff, but fun. I have no doubt that you mean well, but I’m afraid that you are deceiving yourself. Loving your neighbor isn’t about hopping in the sack; it’s about serving their best interests even when they don’t know what it is, and putting your interests aside to do what is right and good. That’s all it has and ever will mean; I hope you learn to see that. Until then, I’m praying for you.

          • leecappella

            Hi, Jake.

            Thanks for your reply. I now understand the direction you were trying to go in. I just do not agree with it. The moral law is included in the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. All laws, if there are any other laws, are all summed up in this: you shall love your neighbor as thyself. I stand by that because Jesus said it is the commandments based on how you treat people that determine one's entrance into heaven. If something is not moral, then the Law would determine it to be so. We will just have to disagree.

            I believe Paul was on a mission of educating people about the King's Law. I don't believe that He informed them that the government was appointed by God, that they need not fear the government, that they should obey the government, yet they are not to do what the government permits. Paul wanted believers to walk in the spirit and not in the flesh. He, I believe, categorized ‘in the flesh’ related things as being selfish and an injustice to one's neighbor, the opposite of what the Law required. To walk in the spirit was to practice loving kindness and equitableness toward others. Loving kindness, benevolence, and altruism towards others is what the Law requires for inheriting life in the age to come, per Jesus. This is not about any other law, but the one Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself that Jesus said, if done, you shall live. Any moral law can be found within this one Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself.

            Paul taught against using our bodies as instruments of unrighteousness, which, in simple terms, is unkindness towards others. The righteous are righteous because they practice loving kindness towards their fellow man, as Jesus states in Matthew 19:16-19. Unrighteousness, therefore, is the opposite of loving kindness. Instead of being enslaved to the written letter of the law found in the law of Moses and its works based commandments,

            Both Jesus and Paul taught others to die to their enslavement to sin, which they were made aware of by the written letter of the law (ie. the law of Moses). Paul says, he did not know about sin until the law (of Moses) told him. He uses coveting as an example of such a sin. He wants them to leave enslavement to the written code and become slaves in newness of spirit to King Jesus’ faith of loving others because by loving others, they fulfill the Law (of Christ) and, thereby, are walking in the newness of the spirit.

            Sex may have been designed for procreation, but procreation is not a requirement for salvation. Being heterosexual is also not a requirement. I do not believe that a person who is homosexual is going to be denied entrance into heaven because they are homosexual. If they are denied, then being heterosexual then becomes a determining factor for entrance into heaven. However, the Law of loving others does not have that requirement within its commands. For me, it seems simple, for you (and others), it may not be so simple. This may be that weak and strong of faith thing spoken of in Romans chapter 14:)

            Regarding Matthew 19, I do not see that Jesus is calling for males to castrate themselves, if they cannot accept what he is saying about a man leaving his wife for any reason. Instead, Jesus simply addresses the issue at hand, which is whether or not a man can put his wife asunder whenever he wishes. The subject of eunuchs comes up after Jesus has spoken and one of the disciples thinks that what Jesus said makes the case of a man marrying a woman seem like not such a good idea. What I believe is going on in this story is that Jesus is responding to his disciple's “..it's not good to marry..” statement. The disciple, after hearing what Jesus had to say, seems to find it not good to marry a wife. I see Jesus telling his disciple, “..This topic is not for all men. Not all men will marry a wife. What I have said is only for those to whom it applies to..” Jesus continues to explain what he means and he says “…Because there are eunuchs. Some were born eunuchs from birth. Some were made eunuchs by other men and some made themselves eunuchs for religious reasons. He who can accept this possibility of thought, let him receive it..” I believe homosexuals are natural eunuchs, born from birth. Jesus knows all, so I believe he was/is aware of this. Although different from your faith opinion, this is mine.

            We disagree. That is of no surprise. I am aware that you are not going to abandon what you believe for what I believe because you don't have faith in what I am saying. I'm not going to abandon what I believe for what you believe because I don't have faith in what you're saying. Your faith is yours. Mine is mine. You believe God is in agreement with you. I believe God is in agreement with me. God is, indeed, the final authority. That means either of us could be wrong in what we believe because both of us are equally capable of error. Nonetheless, we both will, likely, continue to believe as we have believed before our conversation ever started. But, it has, indeed, been a fun, yet serious discussion. Thank you for praying for me. I will pray for you as well, brother, as we all should pray for one another.

            PS. Loving your neighbor is not about jumping in the sack. I agree with you on that one.

          • Jake Cole

            Again, there are some points on which we can agree, but others on which we, where it’s just that we disagree—like say immersion or pouring/sprinkling in regards to baptism—but are just worlds apart in our under understanding. I will agree that part of how we will be judged, in the end, has a great deal with how we treated others, but even how we treated ourselves is in that. The word, the apostle Paul coined (our first record of it is in 1 Corinthians 6:9) as homosexual, the King James gets very literal in its translation: “abusers of self with mankind” (arsenokoites), which is a phrase I find both telling and alarming.
            Jesus, numerous times, equates an attitude with an action, because the attitude, whether or not one acts on it, is the beginning of an attitude. Being a heterosexual will get you to hell just as fast as being a homosexual (and I want to stress that “being” is not so much what a person is made of as what they are doing with what they have been given, or acting in such manner), which is why ALL sexual sin—remember what the target is—is condemned. The attitude of, “I refuse to listen or believe what God has said to do or not do”, is just as condemned as murder because the attitude begets the action. Paul uses the example of covetousness, desiring that which you have no right to, because that was the first sin, Eve desired the knowledge of good and evil, the problem is that once you breach the dam all that flows out is evil. Both Peter and Paul warned those who believe “not to cloak evil with liberty”.
            Whenever Paul uses the contrasts spirit with flesh, he is differentiating between two states, the sinful state and the saved state. The law requires two things: love God, love man, the two are inseparable. One can’t truly love his neighbor if he doesn’t love God first, and desire His will above anything else, because loving your neighbor includes, in the commands which is summarized in the statement, “(you) shall surely rebuke (or reprove, to speak with disapproval) your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him (Leviticus 19:17b).” Because if you fail to do that, guess what you are doing, you are committing injustice in judgment (19:15), also falling under that summary command. All of this is tied together, which is why Paul could say in Romans 2 that man is without excuse. This is not to be ugly and spiteful, but to move sinful man to a state of righteousness through faith in Christ by repentance of sin, turning from the old, dead way to the new and living way, because, “(those) who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” Because to me it sounds like you are talking about license, and that is something we do not have through that faith

          • leecappella

            Hi, Jake.

            Instead of going into a long drawn out reply, I will simply repeat what I am sure I've said before: You're a fallible human, like me. That means, despite our passion about what we believe is or what we believe isn't, we still could be wrong regarding aspects of what we believe. If you were God explaining things to me, I would have no choice, but to concede to the infallible, all knowing interpreter, God. Since that is not the case, I will take what you've said to me up until now, and going forward, and realize that you have a right to your view like I have a right to mine. God can only say which of us is more closer to the truth. Until then, I choose to believe what I believe over what you believe, as mine makes more sense to my spirit. My prayer for you is continued growth, understanding, and enlightenment. I do not pray for you to see things as I do. I pray for you to love and treat others in a benevolent, altruistic manner, manifesting loving kindness. As long as you do that, I am not concerned with you agreeing with me. I've explained my stance over and over to you, as you have to me. I think we've come to the point of repetition as well as an impasse.

          • Jake Cole

            And therein lies the problem. It's not about how we interpret things, especially when it comes to the eternal souls of people. It's not about being good, or nice, or altruistic, it's about being HOLY. The constant call of God is “Be holy, as I am holy.” Interpretation comes down to minor issues, like baptism, but this is not about interpretation, this is a question of someone being right and someone being wrong, of someone recognizing and aligning with the revealed truth of God and someone “kicking against the goads”. I do believe that we both have the best interests of people at heart, but only one of us has the necessary part down pat. I will make a sincere recommendation to you: read Charles Edward Jefferson's “The Character of Jesus” it was available on Google Play Books for free, reading it changed my entire attitude about a lot of different matters, mainly making me realize what is important. Take care.

          • leecappella

            Reading is interpreting. Whatever you read requires an explanation of what is being said in any given written context. That process is called interpretation. Have you not read Matthew chapter 25? Why do the righteous inherit the kingdom? Why does Jesus call them the righteous in the first place? What it seems that you do not seem to realize is that being benevolent, altruistic, and practicing loving kindness towards any and everyone is being holy. If not holy, why are they the righteous as described by Jesus? The new Law is living in the spirit, not in the written law of the old testament law of Moses. As Paul said, that law could not help him. Only living in the spirit could and that is done by loving others via loving kindness. It seems that there are a lot of books out there. If you wrote a book, it would be written according to your faith and how you see things. I, however, love to read books. I either agree with what I read or disagree with what I've read, so I may take you up on that. Let me also suggest a book to you: “Pauline Parodoxes Decoded” by Michael Wood. This book have changed my life, as it is based on Dead Sea Scroll studies and Koine Greek papyri analysis. All of his books are life changing. No doubt, you will not, likely, agree with them because they teach, in better detail, what I have been saying to you. But, that is no different than you suggesting a book to me that, likely, teaches what you have been telling to me. Another reason why people have different views is because they read different things. But, in the end, they still have to decide whether or not they agree with what they've read. You take care as well. All my best to you.

          • Jake Cole

            Sorry it's taken me so long to get back, I've been busy with school and everything.
            I've read Matthew 25 many times over the years, and noticed a few things. Please allow me to point out these definites about it:
            1. The parable of the 10 virgins, 5 who had prepared themselves for the arrival of the bridegroom, 5 who hadn't. This parable is often taken as implying that there were those who were looking for Christ to arrive and realized it, having prepared themselves to receive him and when he came, either the 1st or 2nd time, they were ready.
            2. The parable of the talents. This is often taken to mean that God has given people certain gifts for this life and expects them to invest them and do something meaningful, with the promise that their diligence will be rewarded and their abuse or negligence will be punished.
            3. Jesus speaking on the day of judgment, which is often used, as you seem to be, to say that being altruistic tops the other two points. There is one little problem, the two word phrase, “my brethren.” That little phrase begs the question, “Just who are His brethren?” To find that, you have to turn to Mark 3:35, “those who do the will of My Father.” Okay, so what is “the will of (His) Father?” The will of the Father is that those who see that Jesus is His Son, will believe (John 6:40). What constitutes belief? Obedience constitutes belief, total obedience (Deuteronomy 9:23; Hebrews 3:18-19). But because, no one is justified by works of the law (Romans 3:20), how is it that we can come into a state where anyone might do those things which constitute obedience without heaping more condemnation upon themselves? They must be born again (John 3:1-21), which is evidenced by faith and repentance. Does this happen all at once? Sometimes, but sometimes it takes longer and requires some hard work, but it happens. And you, I'm afraid, are hindering that, judging by some of the things you have said.
            And I thought I recognized Woods’ influence, been a while since I read The Pauline Paradox so it took me a while to refresh my memory; it was a book that I found laughable and unscholarly based on a plain reading of the texts that he called into question, added to the fact that he has to twist text to get to his desired meaning, I would have to cast him in the same lot as Rob Bell.
            Basically, Lee, all that I can conclude is that you have your itching ears being soothed by what you want to hear over what needs to be heard and obeyed. So I draw from a paper I wrote some time ago on God's judgment and our responsibility to it:

            We imagine that God weighs every soul in the scales of justice, and Scripture is replete with those examples. We see our good deeds on one side and our evil, sinful deeds on the other. The problem is that we see them as weighing the same but they don't. Evil deeds, think of them as a five-pound lead weight. Think of every good deed as a single, downy feather. If all that you've ever done is one bad thing, that five pound lead weight, how many good deeds would you have to do to do to not only make the scales even out, which seems to be the goal, but actually overcome that evil, rebellious deed? That is the point that is missed: our good and our evil is not to even out, but our good must OVERCOME evil, it has to make the evil and sin irrelevant, non-existent in our lives. If all man sees is a balancing act, then he will forever be condemned. Any altruism, or charity or kindness done on our point while there exists any sin, which has been clearly defined in Scripture, in our lives following our exposure to the grace of God through faith in Christ, grace that by the Holy Spirit should move us toward a more holy state and away from sin, only adds to that most certain condemnation that abides for the most unrepentant of sinners. It would indeed be better if we “had a millstone hung around [our] necks and were flung into the sea”, than to persist in lying to those who need that realization most. Our most sincere message to all the world must be the same as Christ's message if there is any hope for anyone, “Repent! For the kingdom of God is at hand.”

          • leecappella

            Hi, Jake.

            No need to apologize for taking so long, as I was under the impression, from our last conversation, that you and I had actually finalized our talk, concluding that we both simply disagree, which we do. I do appreciate the dialogue, even though it changes nothing for either of us.

          • Candy Gurtler

            To God all sin is the same. There are no levels of sin. It either is sin or it isn't. And Jesus expressed to the woman at the well that her current relations with a man outside of marriage was sinful and required repentance. Which would mean it were a habitual sin that she would have to turn away from as with any man or woman who today live together and engage in a sexual relationship and are not married. I would call living together as a married couple when you are not habitual sin. That is also a lifestyle.

          • leecappella

            IMHO, adultery is a violation of the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. If you're married and you sleep with someone who is not your spouse, you have betrayed your spouse. You have harmed your neighbor. If you're single or married and you sleep with someone who is married to another, you have betrayed your neighbor (ie. you have betrayed the spouse that is unaware of their own spouse's adultery). You have harmed your neighbor. The bible is not against sex outside of marriage between single persons. It does not violate the law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. However, sex outside of one's own marriage does violate the law of loving others as thyself because it causes harm to the unaware spouses. Love does no malice or harm to his neighbor.

          • Candy Gurtler

            Explain fornication then?

          • leecappella

            Hi, Candy.

            Just like the term ‘sodomite’ has become to be understood to mean ‘homosexual', ‘fornication’ has become to be understood as ‘sex outside of marriage'. As you may, or may not, know, ‘sodomite’ does not specifically refer to a homosexual. However, many use the term ‘sodomite’ and interchange it with the term ‘homosexual', erroneously. A ‘sodomite’ specifies a male devoted to idolatry by way of prostituting himself as service to an idol. Maybe all sodomites were homosexual. Maybe, they were not. Nonetheless, the term specifies someone (a male) who was 1) devoted to an idol and idolatry and 2) he prostituted himself as a form of religious service/duty to the idol. If it were correct to interchange the terms ‘sodomite’ and ‘homosexual', it would be correct to assume that all homosexuals prostitute themselves out of devotion to an idol. However, this is not the case.

            Regarding ‘fornication', the term has become to mean ‘sex outside of marriage', but that was not the original meaning of the term. It would be fair to define fornication as sex outside of marriage and call it a modern day understanding of the term, but it's not the ancient, biblical meaning of the term. Because ‘fornication’ is listed side by side with adultery in some places in the bible, it has been assumed that both are different from one another. One must mean adultery, as we understand it today, and the other must mean something other than adultery (ie. pre-marital single people sex). When fornication and adultery are listed side by side, it is differentiating between the two, but not as pre-marital single people sex side by side with adultery.

            In Hebrew, ‘fornication’ is ‘zanah'. In Greek, it's ‘porneia'. Adultery, in Hebrew is ‘moicheia'. In Greek, it's ‘naap'. When both ‘fornicaton’ and ‘adultery’ are listed side by side, what you are reading are the ancient Jewish understandings of adultery. ‘Zanah’ refers to female adultery. ‘Mocheia’ refers to male adultery. That's why the are listed separately in lists. They are two distinct terms, but they both refer to adultery. It's not difficult to see why the ancients differentiated between male and female adultery. The differences between males and females has gone on since the beginning of human existence. Differences in how each are seen by society, that is.

            Males had more freedom, sexually, than females did. A married man could have more than one wife. If he forced himself onto an unbetrothed woman, he had to marry her. When a married woman was caught with another man, she was stoned to death. A married man could sleep with a prostitute and it not be considered adultery. He even had the freedom of sleeping with any of his slaves, male or female, and it would not be considered adultery. A female could not do this. She belonged to her husband. To be with anyone other than her husband was to commit the crime of ‘porneia'/'zanah'/'fornication'/'female adultery'. She could not be unfaithful with anyone. ‘Fornication’ is also used to, figuratively, describe unfaithfulness to God because it is a term that refers to being unfaithful in a marriage. Thus, there was a distinction between female adultery and male adultery due to the differences between how males were seen and how females were seen in comparison.

            So, my answer to your question is fornication refers to female adultery in the bible, not sex outside of marriage by unmarried persons. Sex outside of marriage originally referred to a married person having sex outside of their marriage. It is a sin because, as I've stated before, it is a violation of loving thy neighbor as thyself, IMHO. Hope you had a good Christmas!

          • JDJ

            I agree with you 110%. Thank you!!

          • bob

            you are straight up sick. You have completely twisted the Word of God. I can only imagine what demons hide within you. The order that Jesus gives sinners is to stop sinning. He tells us to repent and change our lives. You no doubt think there are many ways to heaven as well? Jesus is the only way. Either you believe in the scriptures and believe in Him or you are lost to this evil world. There is no in between.

          • Michele L Craycraft

            I will follow Jesus on this one sorry.Matthew 19:4 “”Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,
            5 “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
            6 “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
            Jesus clearly explains marriage is between a women and a Man. However, you are welcome to pray and ask the Holy Spirit for enlightenment.

          • leecappella

            Hi, Michele.

            Matthew 19:4 is a discussion in the context of divorce. Jesus refers to the creation story to address the question of a man leaving his wife for any reason whatsoever. He continues to address the divorce issue by using the creation story to show the Pharisees that a man'n marriage to his wife should not be put asunder. Of course, Jesus refers to heterosexual marriage in his reply because the topic of discussion at hand is heterosexual marriage and whether or not a man can leave his wife for any cause? I do not see these verses as being opposed to gay marriage. If you've been reading any of my posts, then you can see that I believe sin to God is anything that violates the Law that determines sin, which is the Law of loving thy neighbor as thyself. Unloving acts are sin. Loving acts are not sin. Homosexuality does not fall under the unloving acts category. I could go further into the discussion Jesus makes about natural eunuchs, of which I believe homosexuals are. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. However, I will halt there. I would like to say that you should not assume that someone has not prayed and asked for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just because they don't come to the same conclusions as you do in regards to the bible. Hope you had a nice Christmas. Talk to you later, possibly.

          • Michele L Craycraft

            Take it how you want,I am not the creator or Judge.Nor can I tell anyone how to live.I guess we will have to wait for The Lord to speak on this issue.God Bless.

          • leecappella

            I wish everyone would share that sentiment, Michele and, simply, love others in a way that they would want to be treated and let God be God the All Knowing:)

          • Michele L Craycraft

            Only those who repent are forgiven. Even when he forgave the woman caught in adultery. He said your sins are forgiven you.
            Do not sin again

          • Saved Sinner

            Repetitious sin in defiance of God is not an illustration of a forgiven saved person. Paul said that the grace of Jesus is not a license to sin, Heaven forbid! That is crucifying Jesus over and over. God does forgive and Jesus said forgive up to 70 times 7, but even God has his limits.

          • fretchick

            But the law is for the sinner and not the Christain so that they can see the need for God.

          • Sara

            It said that but it is not our job to judge!!!!!

          • Dave

            She was refering to the New Testament, which if you are a Christian is the only one that truly counts because it is your new covenant with your god. Leviticus is in the Old Testament, in case you are having trouble keeping up, Jesus said a lot of things, however he never even mentioned homosexuality in any context, he tasked Christians with one pretty simple job, above all else love your neighbor as you love yourself, to Jesus love and compassion were the cornerstone to human existence, not hate and judgement. Congratulations Christians on missing the boat entirely, to be a Christian doesn't mean that you like Christ, it means you are supposed to be like Christ, and he would have spent no time condemning and hating others, because his was a mission of love

          • leecappella

            Actually, a lot of the old testament law no longer applies, according to Christ. Jesus got rid of all of the commands in the law of Moses that were between man and God. Only the commands based on man and his neighbor are the law: love thy neighbor as thyself. The law of Moses is no longer. The law of Christ took its place (Matthew 19:16-19). Mr. Robertson has the right to express his beliefs and opinions, but I think he's failing to love his gay neighbor as he loves himself based some of the things he said, which says all gay people are just as he described, which is false. Especially, to those who actually know some gay people, individually and personally.

          • appalo L.

            I don't want to argue anymore. All I know is if someone doesn't ask for forgiveness for any sin, they will have to answer to God at judgement. To be a Christian means to strive to be like Christ. I am not judging but warning what the Bible says about the subject. What someone does is between them and God.

          • leecappella

            This isn't an argument, Appalo. It's a discussion. Matthew 19:16-19 is the answer to what one must do to inherit life. It's the answer Jesus himself gave. Not arguing. Discussing.

          • appalo L.

            It did sound like arguing to me. I know the only way to Heaven is through Jesus. I know we are to love one another and not the sin.

          • leecappella

            We both agree that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, but it's the ‘through Jesus’ part where we, seemingly, differ. To me, arguing would be if I was yelling and screaming at you on my end of the keyboard and you were too. If arguing is simply two people who differ, yet their replying to one another, then, I guess, we're arguing, but just without yelling:) I just see it as you expressing what you believe and me doing the same.

          • Candy Gurtler

            I agree appalo but we should hate all sin not just point out the ones that offend us the most. God finds them all offensive. If we seek his will for our own lives we will know what he does and does not want us to do. Using his word to condemn one persons particular type of sin is not what he called us for and it will not bring the sinners to salvation. It will only widen the separation between us until they are so angry they are unreachable. That is the reason Jesus always taught love. How can we convince the unsaved God loves them and wants to heal and change them if we keep pointing out their sins? We all have so many of our own and we wouldn't want them pointed out to us from others who are equally sinful, but stand over us self-righteously. When we do that we are actually doing the devil's work for him by pushing the sinner away instead of drawing them in. This message isn't specifically and entirely directed at you just the I agree with you part in the beginning was.

          • appalo L.

            I am sorry if it seemed that way. I do agree with you.

          • pcobrien2001

            Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed because of homosexuality? If that were the case, I think the men inside the house would have been inviting the men outside to come in for a little hummus and crackers! Every time I've read that it sounded a lot more like the issue was hatred and intent to rape than homosexuality. (And by the way, since when is it ok to offer your virgin daughters in order to avoid a little gay sex going on?)

          • appalo L.

            OK :)

          • SoTiredof Ignorants

            Christians put the word of Jesus Christ above the Old Testament. Jesus came to change what was said in the Old Testament and forgive human kind. Otherwise, why would He had come? Also, the Old Testament, also states that women that go with a man other than their husbands are to be stoned and that divorce is not acceptable. How about that? It is either you accept it all or nothing.

          • krista

            matthew 19:4-5 “Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ”

          • Jesus is God

            Is it loving to know that someone is facing eternal condemnation and not offer them the only solution?
            Seems to me the haters are the ones that oppose that.

          • Candy Gurtler

            There's a fine line between offering them the truth of salvation and pointing out only 1 of their sins to condemn them. They should not be approached any differantly with the salvation message than anyone else. All unsaved are facing eternal damnation because of their unforgiven sins, ALL of their unforgiven sins. When sharing the message of salvation to a thief do you point out that he is a thief? No you share the message of forgiveness of ALL his sins without pointing out one individually. Pointing out one individually is more harmful and will surely not convince anyone that God is forgiving if his messanger is standing there pointing judging fingers.

          • Jake Cole

            All it takes is one. James makes that point in his epistle, to break just one makes one guilty of breaking them all, and Paul makes a similar point in his letter to the Galatians.

          • Candy Gurtler

            Yes it does only take one, but pointing out only one makes it appear as though that is their only sin. The point is all of us, forgiven and unforgiven, are riddled with sin. Don't think the unforgiven don't see our sin because they do, and when we stand there and point out only one of theirs it will not send them to Christ in forgiveness. It will only make them defensive and hinder their realization that they need Jesus for forgiveness.

          • Jake Cole

            Valid points. I think it would therefore be best to change the pronouns from “us and them” to “we” to solidify it. WE, apart from repentance of sins and turning to God, are condemned as sinners, law-breakers. Therefore by turning in faith, through Christ, we are made righteous.
            Sounds better to me.

          • Candy Gurtler

            I will agree to that. Very well put.

          • leecappella

            It's loving, but you don't know. You believe. Only God knows, which is why only God judges. Because you're human and fallible, what you believe could be incorrect on some levels. Therefore, you're not fit to say who will face eternal damnation. Only God. Jesus said that in order to inherit eternal life, one must love thy neighbor as thyself. I bet you believe differently. Thus, you could be wrong. Yes, I could be wrong too, but, at least, I agree with what Jesus said in Matthew 19:16-19.

          • pilgrimtrucker

            It appears by your comment that you have no concept of the Trinity, the inspired Word of God and that Jesus is God.

          • Cowboy Up

            Read again. He also quoted and referenced earlier scripture that “man” shall leave home to be united to his “wife”. The argument that all he spoke about was love makes him sound like all he said was just a Beatles song or something. Loving people doesn't equate to anything goes or don't say anything to people about their lives. Jesus did and said a lot of things you probably would not perceive as nice or loving if you believe all he said was love one another allow each other to do as you please

          • FilmPunk

            I think you're being a little selective about the gospels if you think Jesus not calling out a specific sin is acceptance of the sin then you've not really read the bible. The bible covers all sexual sins from genesis to revelation.

          • addmorejuice

            THANK YOU!! Every body who RUSH to quote bible scripures ALWAYS for get that MAJOR fact that GOD himself – directly or indirectly NEVER said ANYTHING about homosexuals. I read the bible from COVER to cover TWICE and study the Gospel of John, Acts etc in College and NEVER see God say anything on the subject.

            GOOD POINT!!

          • Greg McCallum

            He says it is sin for a man to lay with another man…. that's awkward isn't it.

        • Jospeh

          I Love to sin this way!! Fun times

        • Marine MOM

          It's seems to me that the most important thing that people are forgetting is that it doesn't matter what religious beliefs he has and it doesn't matter if anyone agrees with them. What matters is the fact that last I checked freedom of religion and the right to believe was one of the greatest reasons for living in this country.

        • SoTiredof Ignorants

          Sorry to disappoint you but Jesus Christ said nothing, zero, nada about homosexuality. Inform yourself.

          • SoTiredof Ignorants

            By the way, I hope that you and yours did not sit down to a big dinner, over the holidays, because the sin of gluttony is names many times, in the bible, as one of the worst sins.

          • Tim Rowland

            Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:

            Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

            Maybe you should educate yourself? He also said in Matt. 5:17 that he did not come to abolish or do away with the Law, but to FULFILL it. It is the same Law that says homosexual activity is an abomination to God. You can't point to Jesus and erase the Bible.

    • molosky

      Considering that “immoral sexuality” is dominantly practiced by non-homosexuals, who are a tiny part of the population, why the need to single-out gays at all? Shouldn't he be talking directly to the millions of sodomites that watch his show and buy his products?

      Rather it is obvious he is trying to pander to his audience's belief that they are superior to many “wicked” Americans that surround them, rather than just as bad as “the gays.” If you think that he is claiming he is no better than the people he is alluding to, you are completely naive.

      One of the amusing turns here is the effort to link preservation of animal species and/or opposition to animal cruelty to, of all things, pagan idolatry. Is that not transparent enough for you?

      I hate to break t to you, but this is nothing more than modern an American political agenda merely exploiting the Bible.

      • appalo L.

        Any immoral sex act is what people do outside the marriage. Do you realize how many people commit adultery?

        • molosky

          Yes I do. See an elaboration of this exact point in the comment you are responding to.

          • Saru

            Actually I think he was singling out alot more then gay people. It seem he also single, scientist, atheist, and animal lovers as well along with gays if you read what he said befor hand. Glad I dont like this show… but I think people should really stop watching it..

          • molosky

            What I meant is that he (and other like him) single out homosexuality when it is a tiny part of a phenomenon they claim to oppose on principle.

            However, the total range of targets he has in his own commentary on who is currently “wicked” is by no means limited to gays. As I mentioned, he used a hilariously stupid leap to claim that anyone not wanting to harm animals (a big part of the population) is engaged in a form of biblical wickedness.

      • leecappella

        What are sodomites?

        • molosky

          Those who practice sodomy or consider it acceptable.

          • leecappella

            Yes, I've heard of a sodomite. Sometimes, when I ask a question, it's just because I want to hear what one has to say. It seems, most people define sodomite as a homosexual. I have not come to that conclusion. Instead, I find it to be a term that, biblically, refers to a man who is devoted to licentious idolatry via prostitution. This is what Leviticus 18:22 would be referring to, as well as, Paul in Romans chapter 1. When 1 Kings 14:22-24 says, there were sodomites in the land (in some bible translations), it's not saying, there were homosexuals in the land. It's saying, there male temple prostitutes in the land performing their widespread idolatrous acts for religious purposes, which they were known for doing. I think once people learn that the term sodomite does not, specifically, mean homosexual, but, instead, refers to a male devoted to idolatry via prostitution, the gay children of God will be seen a little better than they do now, due to incorrect biblical understandings. IMHO.

          • molosky

            If you note my original comment, the point I was making was that a large portion of DD's own fan base are in fact in violation of the same principles that justify his apparent hatred of gays. The homosexual contribution to the totality of sodomy is negligible, numerically. But if Christians went around pointing out sexual deviance more broadly they'd lose most of their adherents.

            You can tell someone is a just a common bigot if they think homosexuality is equivalent to sodomy and tolerate all other sexual deviance.

          • leecappella

            I am still unsure of your stance. However, I do see your point about how someone who condemns homosexuality might seem to ignore the other traditional Christian violations that Duck Dynasty fans themselves might be guilty of. Do you refer to some Duck Dynasty viewers as sodomites because you believe they are guilty of other violations that are not homosexuality related? Based on the original meaning of sodomite, I don't get your definition.

          • molosky

            “Based on the original meaning of sodomite, I don't get your definition.”

            The definition — which is not mine — is any “deviant” sex. That means all forms of oral and anal sex, as well as sexual contact with non-human objects, if you need more specifics than that. “Sexual immorality” more broadly could also include any form of adultery or sex outside of marriage.

            And yes, for every one homosexual (many of whom do not actually have sex at all) there are dozens or hundreds of people engaging in some form of sodomy or sexual immorality, many of whom think of themselves as thoroughly superior to gays. Many of them are no doubt avid Duck Dynasty fans and some of them are in the very room he is preaching in.

          • leecappella

            I understand the meaning of the act of sodomy. You, however, seem to be extending it to refer to any sexual act not confined to the horizontal man/woman sex act that can lead to pregnancy. Is this what you're saying? Either way, I think it's irrelevant because sex doesn't keep a person out of heaven, unless it's an act of abuse towards another person, as in rape, molestation, etc.

            Your definition of sodomite say even those who condone sodomy are sodomites. I've never heard of that. To my understanding, the term sodomite refers to a male who is religiously devoted to an idol and he shows his devotion by prostituting himself as a temple prostitute for ritual purposes for his deity. This would be the male/male context of leviticus 18:22 and Romans chapter one.

          • molosky

            By the way, “sodomite” in my usage is not a Biblical term at all. It is a term created by modern Christians to refer to the acts I mentioned and has become synonymous with homosexuality for political purposes. It was used as such in most legal contexts until recently. Obviously it was inspired by the Bible, but is a perversion of the reference. You are correct that the Biblical usage is quite narrow and relates to pagan temple prostitution.

            I think it is useful, however, to start with definition I use because it is agreed upon. The fact that arguments against homosexuality fail on their own terms is important.

          • leecappella

            I understand that:) I have a book in my collection called “The Invention Of Sodomy In Christian Theology” by Mark D. Jordan. I really need to read it, again. It's definitely not one of those books one should rush through:)

            I also understand what the term sodomite means to modern day Christians and non-Christians. I just feel the need to make it known, to those who are unaware, that when the bible has the word ‘sodomite’ in it, it's a word that specifically references a man who is associated with idol worship via acts of sex and prostitution. It's not a word that specifically refers to any and all homosexuals. Many people, I think, fail to see this.

          • billg43

            So its wrong to say every child deserves a Mother and Father?

          • molosky

            In a discussion of something related to the reasons people lack them, that might make some sense. Of course that has little to do with the topic at hand.

          • billg43

            Mother; Father; children. that is the structure of the family. not two moms or two dads . Morals; Religion; Family structure; all not as important as peoples un natural desires.

          • molosky

            Wow. So you really do suffer from near total ignorance of this topic. The lack of a mother and father (common) is almost never caused by homosexuality (uncommon). Almost no homosexuals have children. So, what drives your obsession with a topic completely unrelated to the matter you claim to be concerned about? Dishonesty or have you just been spoon fed propaganda?

          • billg43

            Wow . So you really do suffer from a near total ignorance of what is destroying society . The number one common factor for prison likelyhood is lack of a father in the home. The family and Marriage are under attack. You can do what ever you want that's between you and God. I do care when you try to change right and wrong to suit what you do. I m not trying to make Homosexuality wrong its always been wrong.

          • molosky

            Sigh…you still don't understand. Read this very very slowly: THE LACK OF TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLDS IS NOT CAUSED BY HOMOSEXUALITY. I am not sure how else to explain it to you. This is a very simple concept.

          • billg43

            No one said the lack of two parents causes homosexuality. what I said is the lack of a mother and father in the home is what is destroying our country and homosexuals are trying to marry. and its now accepted for two women to get sperm. and go around nature to conceive. The Family is important

          • molosky

            “No one said the lack of two parents causes homosexuality. ”

            No… I said that you said it was CAUSED BY homosexuality. That's the opposite concept and an obviously false claim you reiterate here. Do you have issues with basic reading?

            Again: It is NOT TRUE that obsessing about homosexuality has any justification based on issues of parenting. I already explained to you why they are not related.

            “Christians don t hate gays they hate homosexuality”

            Then why do you have to lie in order to justify your obsession with them? You are wasting time worrying about homosexuals doing nothing to deal with your alleged concern about two-parent households, which (one more time) are not the result of homosexuals at all.

            The reason why your views are fading from your the mainstream is because your efforts to pretend you are not motivated strictly by irrational hate rely on such ridiculous arguments as the fantasy you weaved about some affect on two-parent households.

          • billg43

            your wrong . First I said the lack of a mother and father was the leading factor with going to prison I said nothing about it leading to homosexuality . You are not important enough for me to hate. What is wrong is wrong . you if you yell its right loud enough people will believe you. homosexuality has always been wrong. It will be wrong tomorrow. Family and Morals .are important . What we teach our children is important. You justify your actions nothing will change your mind,

          • molosky

            “You are not important enough for me to hate. ”

            Please stop being a moron. I am not homosexual and never said I was.

            ” First I said the lack of a mother and father was the leading factor with going to prison I said nothing about it leading to homosexuality .”

            Please stop being a moron. You still cannot read. You argued the opposite causation. MANY TIMES. This is what I said and now repeated to you twice.

          • billg43

            when people have nothing to say they call people names . I don t think your a moron or ignorant your just wrong . Homosexuality was wrong yesterday it will be wrong tomorrow. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change You will say anything to justify …

          • molosky

            You have no reason to think I am a moron or ignorant because I don't confuse something as simple as up vs down three times in a row, nor do I think that homosexuality is the reason children lack a mother and father — an obviously false claim.

            I guess the alternative is that you are a liar, but I was trying to be generous. But it is hard to believe someone could have such serious mental deficiencies as those you've exhibited here.

          • billg43

            you have nothing to say. you think if you keep calling people names will change something . Whats wrong is wrong. you saying its right wont. change it. you have nothing but name calling In this whole conversation I haven t called you one name. you called your self gay. you have nothing to say.

          • billg43

            lets see you have any conversation without name calling I v read you other postings nothing but calling names you have nothing to say

          • billg43

            You've given reasons to be called names its just not how I have a discussion

          • molosky

            You have not shown an ability to read and write simple English, let alone have a discussion. That's not a name, just a fact.

          • billg43

            Christians don t hate gays they hate homosexuality

  • Irv Spielberg

    Jesus predicted that just before His return as Judge, there will be a
    strange, dangerous fad – a spontaneous global steamroller notable for
    its speed, violence, and impudent in-your-face openness. In Luke 17 He
    called this worldwide craze the
    repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19). By fulfilling this
    worldwide mania that's secretly coordinated by unseen spirit beings,
    gays are really hurrying up Christ's return and making the Bible even
    more believable!

    They've actually invented strange architecture: closets opening not on
    to bedrooms but on to Main Streets where kids can see naked men having
    sex in “Madam” Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco Brothel District. We wonder
    how soon S.F.'s underground saint – San Andreas – will get a 10-point
    jolt out of what goes on over his head (see the dire prediction about
    cities in Revelation 16:19, and Google “Obama Supports Public
    What's really scary is the “reprobate mind” phrase
    in Romans 1:28. A person can sear his conscience so much that God
    finally turns him over to S, the universal evil leader whose unseen
    agents can give a “possessed” person super-human strength that many cops
    with tasers have trouble subduing!
    Remember, gays don't have to
    stay bound to their slavery. Their emancipation is found in a 5-letter
    name starting with J – no, not James or Julia. As soon as they can find
    out the all-powerful J name, gays will really start living! (Google
    “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans,” and “The Background Obama Can't
    Cover Up.”)
    Was Jesus silent about gays? Google ” ‘Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality.’ When gays have birthdays….”

  • Tim Rowland

    So….. research much? This is a passage of Scripture that you are attributing to Phil Robertson. It is a progression of sin when God stops wrestling with men's hearts. It includes sexual sins, but it has a whole list of other things as well. Romans Chapter 1, you should look it up. The words you are claiming are Phil's attack on homosexuals are from the Apostle Paul. It was the Apostle Paul who grouped homosexuals in this list, not Phil Robertson.

    So, just be honest that you do not believe in the Bible or Christianity, and stop twisting the facts.

  • Steve Scott

    Tim Molloy……Can't belive you would stoop this low…….He has a much right to say what he belive's…..as you do comming out !!!!

  • MadAtMe

    Phil is spot on with his comments, pedophiles are evil, filthy…oh wait this wasn't about that. Oddly enough I didn't hear him mention that even once in his sermon. That doesn't seem to be on the radar of the majority of outspoken Christians who publicly speak on what is immoral…I must be a heathen I guess as Incest, rape and pedophiles all rank higher on my list of disgust and outrage over gay people. well to h*ll with me unless I manage to do enough drugs to lose myself and then find the light. At that point I will make sure everyone is clear on how big a sin being gay is. Cheers

    • 2kd

      Sexual sin, period. Grow up,

      • Conservative 1 here

        Phil is spot on. The left is always correct just ask one of them. This country would be much better with more folks like Phil.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Claire-Voyant-Claire/100001410191008 Claire Voyant Claire

      Rape is secretly okay, it's blamed on the victim and the molestor especially if a preacher doesn't face much penalty. The victim has to suffer forever. Temple prostitute tradition kept alive. They completely exclude the rape aspect out of Sodom and I guess don't even bother looking up what sodomy actually is. Anal Rape.

      • Paulie Boy

        You are one craaaazzzyyy bitch.

      • disqus_aiRsA0M0jO

        you need to go put your head in the sand and keep it there.. you don't know what you are talking about and you should not comment on things you know nothing about. It just shows your ignorance…

  • KitCarson

    Replace the word “they” with politicians. This is not an anti-gay rant. It's an anti-american politician rant. He's saying the politicians worship the bird/owl, lizard/serpent, animal/?. The punishment being women turning to women and men turning to men (love the hand motions he uses), not being allowed to hunt, etc. Not saying I agree or disagree. Just making sense of this rant. It's just an opinion, he's not saying “I hate gays”. He's saying “being gay is a sin”. BIG difference. I think he doesn't like politicians though! No wonder Jindhal was so quick to defend him! He gets it! Keep your friends close and enemies closer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Claire-Voyant-Claire/100001410191008 Claire Voyant Claire

    Meanwhile, how many shows are being cancelled over the bigotry women face? I don't hear anyone shutting it down when talking bad about women or calling them bitches and hoes.

    I don't agree with his opinions but shutting his tv show down for it is stupid.
    Unless you want to shut down any music or tv shows based on the thoughts and opinions that social group activists think are wrong. I am a woman and have to have thick skin. If I sense someone is bashing women a little too much for my taste, I have the right to not watch their tv shows or listen to them.

    • Paulie Boy

      Shut up bitch.

    • Candy Gurtler

      I am by profession a legal advocate in a domestic violence program. I assure you I know very well the struggles women face. I am also a woman and lived as a homosexual for 19 years. i am now married to a wonderful man and have chosen to read the Bible and let God show me what it means. Even in my field, working with abuse victims, I have not come across someone as angry as you seem to be. Have you seen Phil's actions? Do you know him on a personal level? Jesus is the English translation of Yeshua. pardon my spelling but I believe Yeshua is the greek and Yahushua is the Hebrew. The Bible references prostitutes (female) several times. See the story of Jerhico. The point of talking about the female prostitutes in the Bible was to show that God is a God of mercy and love and that forgiveness is possible for everyone. Prostitues in the Biblical times were the most contemptable creatures which is why they are used to show God's compassion. The only Christians who believe is opression and hatred are not true Christians but politicians trying to win favor with Christians to gain power. Read Revelations. Jesus is coming back. The sinful will be purged from the Earth, separated form the righteous ( not self-righteous) and if you do not think that is going to be a bloody and violent event then you should read Revelations again. I pray that you can let go of some of your anger, and Your hatred, which is obviously directed at Christians. You have been deceived into believing what you have been fed as lies about Christians. Not all men can be judged by the actions of one. Not all black men can be judged by the actions of one, Not all gays can be judged by the actions of one, Not all muslims or Christians can be judged by the actions of one. God looks at our hearts and knows the truth. That is how, when and by who we are judged. I pray you get to know him, and allow him to heal the hatred in your heart.

  • Joshua Proper

    I find it Ironic how many people can call him a hater, a bigot, a homophobe etc. Do you all not realize he is paraphrasing the exact words written in the Bible? He said what the Bible says: it started with sexual immorality and expanded into all sins. Here allow me to show you first hand:

    18 For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

    19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

    20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],

    21 Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [a]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

    22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].

    23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

    24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],

    25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).

    26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

    27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another—men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [b]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

    28 And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,

    29 Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,

    30 Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.

    31 [They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.

    32 Though they are fully aware of God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them.

    • Tara Smith

      The Bible is full of hate, incest, assault, murder, homophobia, etc. so I guess if they're calling this guy those names, they're right.

      • esbee

        actually the bible is a record of the history of God's people, the Jews and it tells what they did (the good, bad and ugly) as related to God's plan for redemption of the Jews and all people. Telling all those awful things that people did shows that God's plan for Jesus to pay for those sins demonstrates unending mercy and love that God has for all people.
        AND if there is no God, no afterlife, then what does it matter how anyone lived their life while alive, since they all go to nothingness? In a few 100 years, Phil will only be a minor footnote in history as new things and events will come along to keep mankind occupied.

        • Tara Smith

          people pick and choose which part of the Bible to thump. I think it's all hogwash. If everyone was just good to each other and helped each other and accepted each other, the world would be a better place.

          • esbee

            I agree 100% but the Bible was written to show that most men are NOT good to each other, they kill, steal, lie, cheat, rape, thus the need for a savior, not only to save them from sins but to change their sinful nature.

      • Paulie Boy

        Somebody needs to put a choke chain on you bitch.

      • Chris

        Ignorance concerning the Bible is GUSHING from this post

  • Tara Smith

    If this guy represents Americans, we're all in trouble! Someone buy him a razor and a muzzle!

    • Paulie Boy

      Someboy needs to put a choke chain on you bitch.

      • Tara Smith

        sorry Paulie Boy, I don't think that would ever happen. Women actually have a right to speak nowadays, don't you knoiw?

  • esbee

    This sermon was no different than any other Christian pastor I have heard telling the truth about what sin is. People do not like that word “sin” because it tends to step on toes. Phil was not showing hate by telling the truth about what God says is sin. The negative media reaction is like someone getting mad because you are telling them they are standing on the edge of a cliff overlooking a 1000 foot drop and the edge is crumbling. You want to save their life and they call you all sorts of names because you say something.

  • charlynda roberts

    Since when is it against the law, and punishable to practice freedom of speech and freedom of religion. When once we the people felt safe and protected by our constitutional rights, is just not the case anymore sadly. I'm not a proud American because what our forefathers established and worked so hard in doing so is being overlooked!! Phil just voiced his opinion, last time I checked that was legal. Remember the constitution? Probably not with the way the president is doing things. No matter how much a bunch of homosexuals or whoever doesn’t like it, Phil will still be blessed with the lord, family, friends, the gospel. He will still hunt and fish and enjoy his land and his life. He is a true god fearing southern man. Lol! You people trying to turn this into something it ain’t are only getting your underwear twisted for no good reason. People have many different beliefs and opinions, isn’t that the very thing that makes up our country. Stop persecuting people for their opinions and beliefs. Are we so dumb to be self destructive and repeat history? Homosexuals display their homosexuality publicly, and if one of them were asked a personal question, dont think for one second they don’t feel entitled to speak their mind. So if you don’t want to hear what a 60 something year old man from Monroe Louisiana thinks then you shouldn’t have asked! Common sense ain’t to common these days! You may be
    a believer in the lord or not I don’t care, but dont lose sight of what is really happening here! We are losing our constitutional rights slowly but surely everyday. I’m wandering what purpose our constitution has these days. Apparently its being used to wipe the captains ass!

    • Tara Smith

      against the law? Was he arrested?

      • Paulie Boy

        Bitch, there are “hate crime” laws that are being put on the books because creatures like you don't want an open and honest debate.

        • Tara Smith

          wow, you need meds dude. you are very angry. It's a simple question. Was he arrested? No, he wasn't. So what's she said above makes no sense. Take pill and chill!

  • Truth

    The gay way of life is becoming more commen in today's society, but that dosen't make taking up the rear a moral thing to do. If you believe in God, and that Jesus died for the sins of man, you must agree that gay's are morally wrong. So, if you are gay you are not a true child of God.

  • Brenda Lynch

    The above article is a great example of how the media twists things for sensationalism. In the article Phil is quoted in his sermon, “Then they bow down to birds…” The writer then states : ” This time, he seems to be adding animal lovers to the group.” NO HE DID NOT! BOWING DOWN MEANS TO WORSHIP. You can be an animal lover…that is not a sin. But, worshiping an animal is a sin. It is media people like this who only create misunderstanding and outright lies about something someone said. That is the real problem here!

  • ccapncrunch

    Ask a backwoods hillbilly a question, this what you get. Ask a backwoods hillbilly to give a sermon this is what you get.

    • Paulie Boy

      Dumb shit, he has a masters degree in English and built a multi-million dollar business.So, what is your education background and what have you done?

  • peace out

    is he rearded? so what is some one is gay?

  • Destructo Rama

    That's easy…”THEY” are Liberals…you know, the AIDS and Herpes of the 21st Century.

    “grouped gays with people full of “murder, envy, strife, hatred”

    “Then they bow down to birds, animals and reptiles, and each other. And
    the first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality.
    They will dishonor their bodies with one another, degrade each other.”

    If you throw in a cigar and a Twitter pic of a Democrat wang you have the DNC. So, what's the problem—besides Liberals once again being exposed for the petri dish of perverts and deviants that they truly are?

  • socratic329

    he sounds like a the biggest freaking hypocrite and not to mention extremely ignorant. “you're going to dieeeee!” sounds incredibly creeeeeeepy.

  • Truth

    When he was asked what is sinful and he goes on to say numerous things are
    sinful all according to things which are stated in the Bible. The
    problem ultimately isn't with Phil. The problem is with man's pride and
    failure to humble themselves before a righteous God who would have us to
    lead Holy lives. We can't pick and choose what constitutes right and
    wrong – it is mandated by the higher authority – The same authority you
    will stand before on Judgment day to give account of your sins. Phil's
    comments are construed as hate – when in actuality – if you would take
    it to heart, and repent of these sins, and accept Christ as your savior -
    You could spend eternity in paradise instead of going to hell. God
    leaves the choice to us – it's really what life is all about and an act
    of love not hate which motivates Phil to warn you about your sin.

  • pinches jotos

    Pinches jotos culeros burn in hell!!!!!!!!

  • MarkCruz

    He has his First amendment right to say what he feels! They asked him what he thought. Da! This is stupid to be upset at him!

  • Dan carroll

    The man hit the nail on the head the bible is the blue print for how God want us to be, what do you think God made a women For! Yes a man and nothing else cuss in he did it would have said it in the Bible, phil Robertson, you are a awesome man of God and I commend you, God bless Americans, we're all sinners were all natural born sinners but he paid the price one man with his blood for all of us every last person in the untimely uneverise

  • Justin Rice Remer,Mn

    Here's what I find funny about theses discussions on here. To you that are in an uproar over what he said… .. its awfully hypocritical of you for judging his beliefs and lifestyle. A people who are so “open minded to others beliefs” are the most close minded and violent. He said what is on his mind. Who cares. Did people get offended? Yes. Do limp wristed pansys offend me? Yes. But I'll admit they're more of a man than I am. I can't take nothing up the poop chute. And gay guys who I say that to laugh so that isn't offensive. Quit condemning the guy and practice what you preach from your soap boxes. The only bigots in this discussion are you guys for condemning a mans belief.

    • lumbee1

      Justin, my Doc told me “Greg, you've nothing to worry about…until the day you feel BOTH my hands on your shoulders”

      Besides, your name IS “just in” after all.
      Just sayin’
      A digital (finger) rectal examination is done to check for problems
      with organs or other structures in the pelvis and lower belly. During the
      examination, the doctor gently puts a lubricated, gloved finger of
      one hand into the rectum. He or she may use the other hand to press on
      the lower belly or pelvic area.

      A digital rectal exam is done for men as part of a complete physical examination to check the prostate gland. Other organs, such as the bladder, can sometimes also be felt during a digital rectal exam.

      Why It Is Done

      A digital rectal exam (DRE) is done to:

      Check for growths in or enlargement of the
      prostate gland in men. A tumor in the prostate can often be felt as a hard lump.
      This may be done as part of a regular examination or to check on symptoms, such as a change in urination. Not all problems of the prostate can be felt through the rectum.

      Help find the cause of symptoms such as rectal bleeding (blood in the stool), belly or pelvic pain, a change in urination, or a change in bowel habits.

      Check for hemorrhoids or growths, such as cancer, in the rectum.
      DRE alone is not used to diagnose
      colorectal cancer. Also, a DRE may not find internal
      hemorrhoids because they are soft and hard to feel. A
      sigmoidoscopy may be needed to diagnose internal

      How To Prepare

      If you have hemorrhoids, tell your
      doctor before the examination begins. Your doctor
      will try not to bother your hemorrhoids.

      How It Is Done

      For a digital rectal exam, you will take
      off your clothes below the waist. You will be given a gown to wear.

      A man is often examined while he stands,
      bending forward at the waist. A man can also be examined while lying on his
      left side, with his knees bent toward his chest.

      Your doctor gently puts a lubricated, gloved
      finger into the rectum. He or she may use the other hand to press on the lower belly or pelvic area to feel for tenderness or problems, such as enlargement, hardness, or growths.

  • Meredith

    God said it first. Phil is only repeating it.

  • rdbyrne

    Anyone reading Romans 1 can tell you that Phil is not preaching hate. Romans 1 is answering the question, “what are the consequences of suppressing the truth (about God) in unrighteousness reveals itself. Homosexual acts are just part of a long list of the ways people behave when they refuse God.

  • appalo L.

    He is right for the most part. If a gay person is not living the gay life style and is keeping to them selves and is saved, then I believe they will go to Heaven. Of course if they even think about sex, they have to ask for forgiveness. But, that is with everyone not just the gays. But only God knows for sure who will enter Heaven. As for hating the gays, Christians do not hate the gays, we hate the life style. There is a difference. Love one another emotionally not physically is a commandment of God.

  • Vivian

    Does anyone really care? Opinions are like assholes: ugly and usually not very well maintained. God is love. Let this guy feel how he wants. We need to be concerned with how Big Daddy feels about us, not anyone else. By the way, I missed the racism part…

  • lumbee1

    In the days of B&W 35mm film, I documented the KKK & the Nuwaubian (sic) a
    BLACK supremacist organization. It doesn't mean I share their beliefs.

    If this is a documentary, A&E has nothing to answer for, but as we know it is as fully
    scripted as a sit-com, A&E and this moron's family are watching as his big mouth literally eats hundreds of thousand dollars. Millions.

    A true documentarian would be entirely nonplussed by the expression of such a sentiment. Indeed it is merely another interesting facet of one or more of the subject(s).
    It's called “life”, we don't all agree.

  • Peace4everyone

    Whether its a good show or not,,With all the racist comments and hateful remarks in news stories, all over the internet and tv these days makes me think we are no better today than what we were in the past or the 60's during the civil rights protests. Its a shame how religion seems to be in the mix of it all when God is suppose to be everyones God and love all his children not just a select few! Everyone carries there own burdens and there own stories in this life. Whether you have a belief system or not. But one thing that can make this life difficult and for some unbearable are people making judgements about each other. Thinking there road is paved with gold while others are of a lesser value.
    Hate is a seed that when planted spreads like weeds in a field. And those weeds determine when and where the sun will shine or not for the other plants. But with alot of sunshine, care and less weeds make for a great enviroment for healthy plants. As for the human race. Hate is damaging for everyone! When children bring to school what they are taught at home is our future determined. If you show your children racism and disrespect it will be spread. Kids are like spounges The fear that other children will have when they go to school each day is scary. And not to mention if a childs thinks if mommy or daddy thinks this way about other people what will they think about me if i make a mistake or do something different or for that matter have friends that are different. A pretty scary world out there for these children. Just to be called names because others believe they are superior to what they think is the “normal.” Teaching children to be kind to others would be in our best interest as a society. To promote kindness, love and respect for others! Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and has always been a battle between good and evil but we can make this world a little better for humankind. For what i have been seeing on the tele & internet, I am seeing and hearing too many adults argueing and having total disregard for there fellow human beings and for our children. Its a very sad world we live in and i hope that during these holidays people can re-evaluate what they think about one another and be kind and love one another as you would love yourselves when that is what is needed the most instead of trying to play God by judging each other and pointing the fingers at one another as if we were better than the next. I hope we all can have a joyous holiday and bring peace to the world that is much needed! To “All” good people everywhere, whether you are African American, Caucasion American, Native American, Chinese, Spanish etc. etc. Whether you have different religions,, Catholic, Presbytarian, Baptist, Protestant, etc. etc. Who cares!!! Whether you are Heterosexual or homosexual, Whether you are handicapped or not. Whether you are green, yellow, blue, purple, pink. There are 4 leaf clovers. There are thousands of different kinds of species! There is a big universe full of undiscovered planets and living and non- living things. How can we ever begin to think that we are of the more superior or better than any other living species. We are all equal in this universe. Don't try to paint your world on someone elses canvas when you haven't finished your own masterpiece! Each and every one of us are different. No two are alike! I will not deny any person out of fear of what someone else may think or what they may or may not like. They are not in this world to judge you or I !

  • fredbeard

    Where can I listen to more sermons from Mr. Phil Robertson ? Its about time someone stood up for there beliefs and cared less about the backlash God bless Mr. Roberton

    • Stablecedar

      I imagine a search of local churches of Christ will provide you with similar bible based sermons. Google Appleton Wisconsin church of Christ or Fond du Lac Wisconsin church of Christ. Since the churches of Christ are based solely on the Bible their message should be the same internationally. Above all, read and STUDY the bible. Bible gateway as a website has multiple free translations to read. If you are searching for the truth earnestly, God will direct you and you will come to the truth of Christ's message independently of any man or creed.

  • Darren

    Think the video shows just what a big-got hatred man he is !! How can anyone defend this idiot is beyond me … But then again who voted for the change and hope Obama on here ? How's that working for you ? When you lose your health care call and thank him



  • thetruthhurts

    I don't give a fuck about Christianity I once was a Christian but nothing but hatred and stupidity come from it how can you believe in a god that has followers like this guy for all we know and I know all Christians are the same bigoted idoits that live in a long forgotten past you all are the evil ones preaching things that have no relevance to due with human nature and what true love is! Fuck all of you idoits

  • Derik Harris

    shows how intolerant liberals really are.

    • thetruthhurts

      Why the hell do Christians even care what gay people do its not their life to live why the hell would they even concern themselves with what people do with their life's but the hell out stupid idoits

  • El Harris

    Oh for crying out loud, he's only reading the apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 1. If GLAAD is so offended, then why is the LBGT community trying to go to CHURCH and be gay Christians. Gay…I mean homosexual Christians don't let it seem to care what the Bible says and still go to a “Christian” church and form “gay” Christian churches. Just because Robertson actually chooses to believe what it says and they don't, what's the big hoopla.

  • Uncle Louis

    You can rationalize all you want Carol. Turn everything around so it benefits you! You and your feelings are all that matters. Their truth has no place in your little world. Live your life for yourself! Dont believe! It does not suit your LIFESTYLE! You go girl! Its all about you! Screw everyone else! God does not really exist! He is a made up story just like the (the boogy man). Meant only to keep you from doing what YOU want to do! They are all full of it! Just keep up the good work and I will see you soon, ok. Sincerely yours Louis Sifer. Heh, heh, heh.

  • Uncle Louis

    Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, Sean, Yes, Jesus forgives EVERYONE. But ONLY if you REPENT and STOP committing the EVIL UNGODLY sin. One can stop masturbating, one can stop watching porn, can one stop being gay? NO! But one can still repent and stop having sex with the same sex! This is what it takes to be SAVED. Unfortunately in this country we have a “ME” society of self gratification and instant gratification. If it does not benefit “us” we simply change the rules so that it does. This does not mean the “original” (Old Testament) rules are no longer there it just means we made new “happy” please everyone rules so we would be “Politically Correct” and not “offend” anyone. (Except God) that is. But who cares about him anyway, right? He is soooo old fashioned. So just keep up the good work and I will see you soon, ok? Hugs n kisses LOUIS SIFER.

  • billg43

    Men and woman share intercourse. Homosexuals commit sodomy. Sodomy under the law is considered a crime with special penalties .And any Doctor will tell you are un natural and unsafe sex acts. I don t care what you do. but when you tell me someone is a bigot because he says what he thinks. your a bigot.

  • Joy Smith

    The dog that barks the loudest has a lot to hide don't they. Joy Smith, Richmond Hill, ga

  • Farmer girl

    What a joke Charlie sheen. Who te heck is he to sling nasty things at anybody the crack head. It's a sad day when a network will pull a person for speaking their given right, a perso who lived the so called American dream, rags to riches from hard work ad dill agency, but will air shows that children getkilledvand women get raped for ” entertainment value” who's? The sick bas—-!!!!!!

  • pilgrim

    too bad liberals don't treat their own the same way (alec baldwin and tracy morgan).
    if phil was a muslim, reading from the koran about islams #1 sin (homosexuality), you wouldn't hear a peep from the left,,,because they can't USE islam to attack the right (unlike christianity). it seems like they are more offended by the way phil votes, than they were offended by his words…since other “liberal”celebrities have said worse, and have not been treated with this much intolerance and disrespect….i wonder why?

  • SinDelle Morte

    This video did not recently surface. It was posted 3 years ago!

  • billg43

    Men and woman share intercourse homosexuals commit sodomy. the law deems sodomy to be a crime with special penalties. And any doctor will tell you there unsafe and un natural sex acts and that's a fact Jack.. Is it wrong to say every child deserves a father and a mother. speak the truth Phil.

  • djm

    We are all entitled to an opinion……….Most of us just never get ours in the media. We all make mistakes, we are human. You cannot live your life worrying every moment that you might offend someone. You will. Why all the fuss over something the man said years ago? Aside from religious beliefs, is Phil showing young people about nature? On that, he is correct…………young people today, for the most part, have very little respect for ANYTHING or ANYBODY. I did not say ALL young people, and I did not mean ALL young people. The crime rate is crazy. People murdering others with no remorse. Were they raised as Christians? I bet the majority were. Christian is, after all, only a word if you do not believe. What makes a Christian? Very political, religion today. It is a sad day when we, as a people, condemn a man for his opinion. So I ask, is this a religious or political CRIME? The man lost his job because of his beliefs? Very sorry day for humanity.

  • therese

    no, thanks, not joining this discussion… it's for the birds! (I meant the ducks)
    and btw, this is the first I hear of this guy with the beard… yep, we need another one of these tv bible quoters.

  • grace

    Keep in mind that this is not a survey of the beliefs of the general “gay” population — those who have accepted a gay identity and are happy in that life. Rather, it is a survey of the beliefs of those who are seeking to overcome or minimize homosexual desires. Gays may or may not answer these questions differently.)

    Father-son relationship problems: In the survey, 97% said problems in the father-son relationship while they were growing up contributed to their developing same-sex attractions (SSA) — and men usually identified it as one of the three most significant factors. (See especially page 6 of the survey.)

    It seems very rare for a man who struggles with homosexuality to feel that he was sufficiently loved, affirmed and mentored by his father growing up, or that he identified with his father as a male role model. Oftentimes the father-son relationship is marked by either actual or perceived abandonment, extended absence, hostility or disinterest (a form of abandonment).

    Like all human experience, this is not universal, and sometimes the father-son relationship doesn't seem to have been a problem. Rather, the relationship with brothers or male peers or male abusers may have created deep wounding. Whatever the source of the estrangement, it is a common experience for many of us to have felt a deep longing to be held, to be loved by a father figure, to be mentored into the world of men and to have our masculine natures affirmed by other men.

    Conflict with male peers: The same percentage of men who said father-son problems contributed to their SSA — 97% — also said problems in their male-peer relationships contributed. And half said it was one of the “top three” factors. (See especially page 7 of the survey.)

    Somehow, even as boys or young teenagers, we felt like we were never “man enough.” We felt like we didn't live up to the masculine ideal. We saw ourselves as too fat or too skinny, too short or too awkward, not athletic enough or tough or strong or good-looking enough — or whatever other qualities we admired in other males but judged to be lacking in ourselves. It was more than low self-esteem, it was low gender esteem — a deficiency in our core sense of gender upon which our whole self image is built. Other males just seemed naturally masculine, but masculinity never came naturally to us. We aspired to it but were mystified by how to achieve it. Among other males, we felt different and lonely.

    Feeling deficient as males, we pined to be accepted and affirmed by others, especially those whose masculinity we admired most. We began to idolize the qualities in other males that we judged to be lacking in ourselves. Idolizing them widened the gulf we imagined between ourselves and so-called “real men.” In idolizing them, we increased our sense of our own masculine deficiency.

    At the same time that we idolized certain male traits or maleness generally, many of us came to fear other boys and men. Born with unusually sensitive and gentle personalities, we found it was easy for many of us to feel different from and rejected by our more rough-and-tumble peers growing up. We came to fear their taunts and felt like we could never belong. Many of us feared the sports field and felt like we could never compete. Many of us felt rejected by our fathers and feared that we could never measure up or would never really matter to them.

    So where did this leave us, as males ourselves? It left us in a Neverland of gender confusion, not fully masculine but not really feminine either. We had disassociated not just from individual men we feared would hurt us, but from the entire heterosexual male world. Some of us even detached from our very masculinity as something shameful and inferior.

    Mother-son relationships (and the “smothering mother” syndrome): Nine out of 10 survey respondents said aspects of their relationships with their mothers contributed to their SSA. (See especially page 8 of the survey.)

    Even as we perceived our fathers as abandoning, ignoring or being hostile toward us, it was a common experience for us to over-identify with or become overly dependent on our mothers. Oftentimes, we never fully cut the “apron strings” that attached our identity to hers. Mom often became our confidant and mentor instead of Dad. But Mom could never show us how to act and think like a man. So it was common for us to view maleness from a woman's perspective instead of a man's. We inadvertently adopted a woman's view of the world. The gulf between us and the world of men was widened and reinforced.

    Feeling alienated from the male world, we often found comfort in female companionship. Some of us labeled women and femininity as superior to men and masculinity because we perceived females as more sensitive, accepting and loving. They felt “safer” to be with and to expose our painful emotions to. Instead of ridiculing our sensitive natures, they appreciated them. They didn't expect us to prove we were “man enough,” even while we were still just boys. Many of us learned to identify with women and girls as our sisters, our buddies and, inadvertently, even our role models. Our sense of girls as the “same sex” and boys as the “opposite” sex was reinforced.

    Sexual abuse: 48% of respondents said that, as children or youth, they had been sexually abused by an older or more powerful person. Usually it was by a male, and in those cases, 96% considered the abuse to have contributed to their developing SSA feelings. (See especially pages 8 and 9 of the survey.)

    Other sexual experiences: 93% said they had had other sexual experiences — including pornography, sexual fantasy and sex play with other boys — as children or youth, and of those who did, 93% said they believed these experiences contributed to their SSA feelings. (See especially page 9 of the survey.)

    Personality traits: 87% said they believed their personality traits were a contributing factor. (See especially page 10 of the survey.)

    A great many of us were born with or developed an innate sensitivity and emotional intensity that we learned could be both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, our sensitivity caused us to be more loving, gentle, kind and oftentimes spiritually inclined than average.

    On the other hand, these were some of the very traits that caused our more rough-and-tumble male peers to taunt us, girls to welcome us into their inner circles, moms to hold onto us more protectively, and dads to distance themselves from us. Perhaps even more problematic, it created within us a thin-skinned susceptibility to feeling hurt and rejected, thus magnifying many times over whatever actual rejection and offense we might have received at the hands of others. Our perception became our reality.

    Homosexual Consequences

    These and other hurts were oftentimes the problems buried below the surface. Complex, interwoven and painful, they drove us to homosexual relationships in an attempt to find healing. But we found that, for us, acting on these homosexual desires actually worsened rather than lessened the underlying problems. Homosexuality, for us, wasn't the solution; it was an escape from solving the real problems that had caused the symptoms to begin with.

    Time alone could never really heal these kinds of deep wounds without our going back to face them, acknowledge them, grieve them, release our legitimate anger over them, take steps to repair the damage they had caused us (to the extent we could), and finally, to forgive and move on.

  • John Lord

    I think the New Pope said it best when asking “who am I to judge?” Maybe Phil would do better to attending to the log in his own eye and ignore the mote in His brother's eye or penis in his Brother's mouth in this case. Even Jesus told us . . None are good, no, not one . . . ” when referring to humans. The God, of the New Testament is no respector of persons. Therefore, the condition on salvation IS about accepting the gift and Scrifice of Jesus and IS NOT “to cease sinning forever.” It is humanly impossible to do so, since Jesus told us that to lust in our hearts is sinful, the intention that may or may not precede a real act is the sin as well as the action. Salvation is a gift we are given that WE CANNOT AND DO NOT EARN, subsequent or precedent to its being bestowed upon us. GRACE–God loves us so He gives us eternal life, which we did not earn and MERCY–God loves us so much He spares us the punishment that we have earned!

  • Whtisnormal

    God loves all-even homosexuals but not homosexuality

  • Tony Smith II

    Great videos

  • Simone Houlihan

    These trashy Neanderthals need to be taken of the air for good! They are a discrace to our county!

  • Sheila Peleonera

    Excuse my profile icon. I turn like a she devil when it comes to defending the truth. You mean, private churches don't have the right to teach the truth from the Bible to their congregations, since the truth is now considered bigotry? We are definitely at the end of times. There are even Bible prophecies regarding this. The event almost has that “Witch Hunt of Salem” feeling. Persecuting anyone who wants to teach 2000 year old Bible Truth. We are literally repeating history and bullying Christians….

    • At_Least_I_Read

      The Bible is a book of philosphy … so I'll grant you ‘philosophical truisms', but really, lady. Truth? How so? Is it as true as the mythology of the native americans? or the Koran? or the Bhagavad-Gita? That book is older than the Bible, so, why not believe it? We are at the end of times, eh? Remember that when you are 75, because deluded people have been saying it for centuries .. for millenia. I guess its more fun for you when Christians are the ones doing the persecuting.

  • Jacob Woodlee

    This video has been on the net for over a year. I've seen it on Facebook and other outlets. This is a liberal media smear campaign taking place. Its ridiculous what people have become and what this nation has become.

    • Steven Gegar

      AMEN brother

    • At_Least_I_Read

      Exactly what is ‘smear’ about this? You state the video has been out there for over a year. Definition of character is not smear … it just shows us what a stupid ass this guy really is.

  • Steven Gegar

    Hey all 1st amendment rights have been crossed so A&E is no longer watched on my TV set

    • At_Least_I_Read

      Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

  • Bonnie McGuire

    It is so funny to hear you men proclaim your love for Jesus while you demoralize Gay love. You are all so homophobic because you love men and Jesus is your way to express that love. You are too homophobic to accept that in yourselves. JESUS IS GAY he is waiting for you to be with him in your fantasy. You will do anything for Jesus and bow down to him with your accepting love won't you. Have a good fantasy boys BUT not at the expense of other people .Stop breeding while you are at it one of you is enough ! Jesus was caught with a boy in the Bible. When the Romans came to capture Jesus in the Bible he was un-robbed and with a boy. That should give your hateful boys something to hope for in your Jesus fantasy. He wants to love you too.Maybe I should not share that with you. I should not enlighten you. Jesus never slept with a woman he sure liked having MEN around him washing his feet.

    • Steven Gegar

      your as moronic as your comment FOOL

  • marsha stafford

    Baby jesus would be mad at you mallard man.


    GOD is the same Yesterday, Today, and Forever!, If God before You who can stand against You?, Go into ALL the world and Preach the Gospel to every living creature!
    If You are not ashamed of Christ in front of men He will not be ashamed of You in front of the Father ! Sounds like to Us Phil”s got quite a nice little account building up in Eternity too! What the enemy has taken?,
    God will restore seven fold !

    • At_Least_I_Read

      How delusional. You shouldn't be allowed to breed.

  • All Knowing

    All the gays say were Bigots for not believing in there sick ways. I say your Immoral and sick pedophiles. you have your words and I have mine.

    • At_Least_I_Read

      Most pedophiles are heterosexual, but don't let the facts get in the way of your hate. And you ARE a bigot. Just for being you.

  • Saru

    I think…. he was trying to loop in us scientist into this…

  • Tim Myers

    God made man and woman for a reason not to be gay

    • Saru

      God also made animals….Meaning he was wanting beastliy!

  • rubart

    From Woody Allen's “Hannah and Her Sisters”: “If Jesus came back to earth and saw what people were doing in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.”

    Since I want to be like Jesus, I've started throwing up already. Christian churches (with a few exceptions) have turned his teachings into a hateful, bloodthirsty, self-righteous, one-size-must-fit-all, and nonsensical cesspool.

    When little kids at church are brought to the front to sing sweetly, “What can wash my sins away? Nothing but the blood of Jesus” (I've seen this), you know you're as far from the nature of God as you from Pluto. Probably farther.

    • Saru

      More importantly.. Why are we past pluto yet… oh yea.. this is america…

      where dreams comes to died.

  • Cowboy Up

    People! Jesus did not condone homosexuality. He stated the scripture reflects God's will and the Bible mentions or alludes to homosexuality as a sin in numerous places. Jesus quoted and referenced earlier scripture that man shall leave his family of origin to be united to his wife. This hardly sounds like a man who condoned homosexuality. And for all you people who say Jesus said “love one another” as your defense of homosexuality, Do you really think “love one another” translates to let each other do as you please. Never stand up or speak out against anything.

    • At_Least_I_Read

      He never said anything specifically against it, either.

  • ingmarmxy321

    My Uncle Nicholas just
    got green BMW M4 Coupe by work parttime using a laptop… check out the post
    right here B­i­g­2­9­.­ℂ­o­m

  • Kelly

    Tim Molloy, you are an idiot! He didn't lump gays in that group. He paraphrased a verse which states all of those things as sins. He isn't saying his sin is any better or worse, he is just listing those things that the Bible is listing as sin. Time to understand our Bible a little better before we go misquoting it and people that are preaching it!

  • tim ellis

    im behind you freedom of speech you have the right I'm behind you god love you

  • Alan Smiley

    I thought this guy was wealthy. Is there a reason why his wearing work clothes instead of his “Sunday best”? Mossy oak at the pulpit? This guy is show boating.

  • Alan Smiley

    Homosexuality leads to murder? So says Father Duck on the video (1:30-1:42).

  • Alan Smiley

    Father Duck calls on Thomas Jefferson to support his religious views (5:55 – 6:00). I don't think the Duck would care for Thomas Jefferson's views on religion, if he would ever take the trouble to actually read them. Here's a prime example in a letter Thomas Jefferson (our 3rd President) wrote to John Adams (our 2nd President) in 1823:

    “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

  • Jordan Funk

    While I don't agree with what Phil has said, they are his BELIEFS, and he has a right to them, and a right to speak about them. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT given to all people to have the freedom of speech, and a right to our opinion. What did they expect a conservative, southern, 60 year-old Christian man to answer? Phil's beliefs don't have to be agreed with, but they do need to be respected, just like everyone else's opinion needs to be respected. Isn't that what America was built upon? Respect, freedom, and honesty? Where are these principles now?

  • drbingham

    When I was young, I remember hearing that people would try to prove the bible wrong, I am 54 years old now, I think I was about 10 then, but never forgot that. Well, here we are! It isn't new to hear, but I thought it would never happen. Guess my pastor at the time was right. He still is alive and doing well. Some things just stay with you for whatever reason. I guess I was supposed to see it come to pass. You never heard of this before, but now it is all I hear. God bless you all!

    • At_Least_I_Read

      You never forgot that? Did something come along during that time and “prove the Bible is right”? What I heard in my congregation was practice the golden rule and live and let live. Love is so much more powerful than hate.

  • Phedup

    You LibDem ReligionPhobes, ChristPhobes, ChistianPhobes are such a friendly, kind, funny as hell, sorta folk. :) You remind me of the CrazyConservatives that went nutso over John Lennon's comments in 1966 regarding Religion and modern music (all taken out of context). Same shit right here, LibDems. :) Take The Duckman's interview and slice it up and wave the “good parts”….JUST LIKE the Conservatives did with the Lennon interview. No way out, LibDems! :) If the Lennon comment was nothing, so is Robertson's. BTW, LibDems/GLAAD, etal……Keep on giving the “Green-Light” for Hollyweird to continue exploiting, making fun of, and taking cheap-shots at gays in their movies/TV shows, and you'll be “fighting your battle” in perpetuity. Yeah, your buddies in CA…thank them for your CONTINUED struggles. :)

  • Freedom Dreamer

    He just going along with his belief and that is with the bible. I do not see anything wrong with that even if I do not belief everything he says. I do not like the relationship about one man and another, but I do believe they are not that bad of people and can do what they want. I also don't believe there is anything wrong with believing what Phil does if it goes along with their religion

  • reservoirdan

    This guy is just another obnoxious, ignorant redneck. Why anyone cares what this hillbilly has to say about anything besides his little hunting toys is beyond me. I hope he crawls back into his swamp along with his bigotry and fake-Christianity and never comes back.

  • Eileen Riddle-Johnson

    These films haven't been hiding anywhere. They have been right on uTube all along. He has never made a secret out of his feelings for the LGBT community but loves the person, not the sin. That is what most fundamentalist religions teach. There are more out there – more shocking I'm sure – but again, it is his Faith and his firm belief in it.

  • everyone has one

    No such thing as politically correct verbiage. Freedom of speech is the law, so unless politics are based on breaking the law, people can say whatever they want.

  • IF only

    2 Corinthians 3:6…….I believe it is high time for Christians to stop arguing with issues concerning the laws……for if we are led by the Holy Spirit…….instead of condemning we will show mercy and intercede on behalf of those trapped in those forms of acts…..

  • steve

    Really People. e are supposed to be a free nation. Stop ruining my country with your leftist bullshit. Everyone is aloud an opinion, as long as they do not support violence or hate towards that group or person physically. Some people still live in a closet.

  • Wilber Claiborne

    Although he is not affiliated with them, what Phil now needs to do is publicly condemn the Westboro Baptist Church which in reality is not a church but is instead a hate group that is anything but Christian. They have stated that they plan to pickett A&E but their motives are far from good. Their actions have proven their ill will, such as the picketting of soldiers funerals and harassing deceased family members, wishing for more dead soldiers, and their hatred for homosexuals. They blasphemously claim that there is no hope for gays but scripture says otherwise. When mentioning sins including homosexuality, the apostle Paul notes that some in the church were homosexuals before they became Christians. Unlike the unChristian Westboro Baptist Church,Phil Robertson loves homosexuals. That's why he speaks out against the sin of homosexuality and invites homosexuals to come to Christ to repent and be saved in the Lord Jesus Christ. Statistics show that there is much greif associated with living the unnatural homosexual lifestyle but there is hope. A joyous renewed life in Christ and everlasting life. This is the loving message of Phil Robertson. As for his comments about African Americans, it is clear that Phil was referring to a time when many African Americans had faith in Christ. Although sadly,they were under oppression by man's law, they were living Godly lives. If you look at footage of civil rights leaders of years ago, you will see that not just they, but African Americans as a whole were courteous, well mannered and well dressed. Why? Because they had a strong belief in God and representing Him as believers, they showed this in their actions and appearance. Merry Christmas Happy New Year Peace and Love to All

  • Relax Man

    Freedom of Speech:
    The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the
    right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have
    the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
    seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless
    of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art,
    or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 goes on to say
    that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities”
    and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary
    “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the
    protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of
    public health or morals”

  • Nancy

    This is America people! Freedom of Speech. He is allowed to say what he believes. Wether we like it or not. I love Duck Dynasty and I plan on watching it anyway.Too bad every one doesn't see it that way. Just like saying Merry Christmas. People get upset if you say it because they are not Christians. It's Christmas! Merry Christmas, wether you like it or not. MERRY CHRISTMAS

  • Taffi Ray

    Looks like this was a speech from 2011 that surfaced almost four years later. Mr. Robertson did not make this a part of the reality show. This was obviously in a private location as a speaker. Like all of us, Mr. Robertson is allowed his opinion on any subject because it is part of free speech in our country. Isn't it just as wrong to knock someone in the head and tell them they can now walk during a sermon but we show those programs. Mr. Robertson also summed up his speech with the fact that it is the Lord's judgment at the end and not ours. The Bible can be interpreted many ways depending on the reader/preacher/priest. There are many reality shows on TV now and some much worse. During Duck Dynasty, family and worship and hard work are the main message and prayer with family at dinner. Mr. Robertson does not say prayer at dinner with opinions. He simply gives thanks to the Lord. There are programs showing sex, horrible language, mob murders and Housewives, although I watch Housewives), are offensive to many viewers. Last Big Brother is a good example. Whew! Look it up. Many ministers are on TV and we do not agree with all and turn the channel. Do the same with this program if you don't want to watch. A/E Network. Are you kidding me! Are they going to ground Phil and put him in the corner until this blows away. Really! Grow some!

  • dangerouspatriot

    These people still don't get it when they continue to say Phil was using anti-gay remarks, he's homophobic, etc. He is quoting directly from the Bible: Romans 1, verses 28-32, you will see the exact words from here that is written in the above article sixth paragraph. So, in other words they're calling God homophobic, the people who wrote these words in the Bible that were inspired by God and are in fact, Gods very words. Read Romans 1 and you will see just what Mr. Robertson is saying.

  • Terry Pinion

    hes talking about Sodom and gamora and its destruction by God and America following down the same path phil believes that the bible is gods law his word on how man should live which incedently is the same as what the Torah and Koran also say about homosexual behavior you may not agree with these three religions and that's fine but several billion people do believe

  • Mark Richey

    So glad that all one has to do to shield themselves from criticism is to cloak themselves in the Bible or their faith.
    Oh. You are a Christian? Ok, then I guess it is alright. Carry on.
    And those screaming that his rights to speak or to worship have been taken away are a phony as is he. He can say what he likes and pray as he prefers. No one has stopped him. Any the rest of us are entitled to our opinions as well.

  • Irv Spielberg

    USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans

    Any connection between beautiful New England and predicted disasters?

    Take same-sex marriage. I would have guessed that a “sin” city (San
    Francisco? Las Vegas?) would have been the first to legalize it.

    Oddly it's been America's birthplace that's wanted to be the first
    place to end America and its values! It's been a Nor'easter of
    Perversion (helping to fulfill Luke 17's “days of Lot”) that began in
    (you guessed it) Boston in 2004!
    New England has gone from the
    Mayflower Compact to the Gay Power Impact, from Providence to decadence,
    from Bible thumpers to God dumpers, from university to diversity to
    perversity, and from the land of the Great Awakening to God's Future
    Shakening that'll make the Boston bombings look like Walden Pond ripples
    by comparison!
    The same Nor'easter has been spreading south and
    as far west as Washington State where, after swelling up with pride,
    Mt. Rainier may wish to celebrate shame-sex marriage by having a blast
    that Seaddlepated folks can share in lava-land!
    The same Luke 17
    prediction is tied to the Book of Revelation which speaks of the cities
    that God will flatten because of same-sexism – including American
    cities – a scenario I'll have to accept since I can't create my own
    universe and decree rules for it.
    I've just been analyzing the
    world's terminal “religion” that has its “god,” its accessories, its
    “rites,” and even a flag. It's an obsession that the infected converts
    are willing to live for, fight for – and even die for!
    claim that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Well, when gays have
    birthdays they don't say what they don't want but say positively what
    they do want.
    Likewise Jesus didn't get negative and mention
    every sexual variation that He knew mankind would invent, but stated
    positively that marriage involves only a man and a woman!
    more facts? Google “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “Government-Approved
    Illegals,” “FOR GAYS ONLY: Jesus predicted,” “Filthy Still Club (Rev.
    22:11),” and “The Background Obama Can't Cover Up.”

  • John A Guthrie

    I am so thankful I didn't grow up in the Bible belt. What an illusion of “God”