Pro-'Duck Dynasty’ Resolution Coming to Alabama Legislature

Pro-'Duck Dynasty' Resolution Coming to Alabama Legislature

State's only gay lawmaker expects it to pass

At least one Alabama lawmakers stands with Phil: Republican state Sen. Jerry Fielding tells CNN he plans to introduce a symbolic resolution in support of suspended “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson.

Fielding joins many social conservatives who have backed the 68-year-old Louisiana duck hunter since he was suspended from his show for making anti-gay comments. More than 250,000 people have signed a petition, IStandWithPhil.com, calling on A&E to bring him back.

Also read: Jesse Jackson Calls ‘Duck Dynasty’ Dad ‘More Offensive’ Than Rosa Parks’ Bus Driver

Fielding said that while he didn't agree with Robertson's statements on race or his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality, he believes Robertson's anti-gay position is “supported by the biblical scriptures.”

“For too long, the silent majority has remained silent when we ought to be speaking up” for the Constitutional right to free speech, Fielding told Brianna Keilar on CNN's “Newsroom.”

Also read: Sarah Palin Defended ‘Duck Dynasty's’ Phil Robertson Without Even Reading His GQ Interview (Video)

Alabama state Rep. Patricia Todd, the only openly gay lawmaker in the Alabama state legislature, told WRBC that she expects the measure to pass.

Also read: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Defenders: Have You Committed the Sin of Gluttony? (Opinion)

Todd, a Democrat, said she believed Robertson has a right to express himself — but doesn't think the issue is worth state lawmakers’ attention.

She also said she wasn't surprised by Robertson's remarks.

“Yes, I've watched “Duck Dynasty.” I thought it was quite amusing. I liked it. I still will continue to watch it,” she said. “(For) most of us, it was like no big deal. Who cares? Yes, of course he thinks that.”

Also read: ‘Duck Dynasty': Twitter Apologizes for ‘Mistakenly’ Blocking IStandWithPhil.com

Besides comparing gay sex to bestiality, Robertson also grouped gays with “drunks” and “terrorists.” He also said the African-Americans he knew growing up in rural Louisiana were perfectly happy before Civil Rights. Robertson made the comments in an interview with GQ.

His comments on race led the Rev. Jesse Jackson to say his remarks were more offensive than those of the Alabama bus driver who ordered Rosa Parks to give up her seat to a white passenger. Jackson also demanded a meeting between his Rainbow PUSH Coalition, GLAAD, A&E, and Cracker Barrel, which initially stopped selling “Duck Dynasty” merchandise but began selling it again when customers complained.

A&E has not responded to Jackson's request or responded to TheWrap's requests for comment.

  • Michael

    There ya go Alabama, your tax dollars at waste. Maybe you can get your state legislators to “symbolically” turn back Civil Rights so the African-American's in the state can be happy again.

    • Billy Wages

      Civil rights, in this country , has been little more than a power grab for the
      Democrats and the libs. What great benefit has the minorities gained?
      Murdering 70 million of their children by abortion isn't really civil rights.
      Teaching them to hate White people isn't civil rights. Providing all people
      with drugs and condoms is not civil rights.
      If we needed abortion, drugs and hatred, then civil rights would be a good
      thing.

      • Michael

        Right, so lets do away with them and let the Conservative Republicans and the majority rule the country, they already have most of the wealth, why not give it all to them.Of course they wont spend any of that wealth creating living wage jobs in this country, they would rather get their corporate welfare and ship the jobs overseas where the workers have no rights at all. Instead of trying to make the country better and creating new jobs, the GOP had their own more important job the last 5 years, getting rid of the negro president.

        • charles

          Is that why the republicans only have one news channel? The majority of the rich are democrats, not republicans. 53% of those making over 200k are registered democrats. Also, how many royal families swing from the right? The left got hijacked long ago. Wake up!

          • Michael

            Right, that's why most of the Republican party donations come from businesses who want to gut the EPA so they don't to worry about air and water pollution, they don't care if our air looks like we are seeing in China's capitol.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I've got news for you, Michael. The Democrats tried to lessen and/or remove worker and environmental safeties for the Energy Sector, and also tried to make it legal for people with conflicts of interest to hold positions of oversight. Imagine somebody like that in charge of things like BP in the Gulf!

            The Republicans in the House of Representatives killed both Bills.

            Don't believe it? Go read the American Jobs Act of 2011, and then the accompanying veterans bill that they tried to pass at around the same time. Know what else it would have done? It would have raised the cost of gasoline to over $6/gallon. What do you think that would have done to the economy?

            You have your information mixed up.

        • Richard E Myers

          hmm that means that all democrats are paupers like john kerry teresa heinz al gore the kennedys ect. ect toomany rich demoncrats to list them all and Obomas race has nothing to do with him being a lousy president

        • DCP the Lesser

          Looks like the censorship fairy got my last post. In any case, you might want to ask Harry Reid about all the jobs legislation he has been leaving languishing on his table and desk in the Senate.

          You might want to ask Harry Reid about the jobs and veterans legislation he and his cronies tried to push onto America (be grateful the Republicans killed both pieces), the legislation that removed worker and environmental safeties and make it legal for person with conflicts of interest to hold positions of oversight. Legislation that also would hiked the price of gasoline to over $6/gallon.

          You also might want to look into the facts of things like Executive Orders that Democrat Presidents have created and put into place for America. Obama recently put into place an Executive Order that potentially can chill the bones of some who read it, including a clause that allows one to seize people and use their labors without compensation. (Sound familiar? It should. It is a lot like a form of slavery supported by Democrats). He got those powers from a previous Executive Order signed by Democrat President, Harry S. Truman.

          FDR, another Democrat President, was responsible for the underlying premise of Harry Truman's Executive Order. It was based in the creation of internment camps into which Japanese-Americans were forced during a state of emergency. Executive Order 9066. Look it up. Yes, that is what Democrats are about. That is the kind of society that they want for Americans in the future as they work to destroy the middle class as part of their plan for a grand two-class society of aristocrats and abject poor dependent upon their government of aristocrats. Time to wise up.

      • Michael

        Sounds like you are from Alabama, Billy, you must be proud. .

  • DN

    Social conservative message today: It is very offensive to say, “Happy Holidays,” and not, “Merry Christmas,” but comparing homosexuals to bestiality and thievery is fine.

    That is message, loud and clear.

    • ILikeFreedom

      Much more worthwhile than sending puke Barry and his whore to Hawaii..

    • DCP the Lesser

      It isn't their fault that the very book that they claim to profess belief in also lists homosexuals with drunkards and thieves. The Bible's authors also considered homosexuality a sin like bestiality was considered a sin. But, it is a religious belief that has First Amendment protections. All these efforts to censor protected speech are wrong-headed. I can understand inclusive speech and so on so as to avoid offense, but at the same time going overly PC amounts to censorship, particularly when people try to get the courts and so forth involved to censor free speech. That is a very bad precedent to set, as the Founding Fathers of our nation well knew.

      • sunflowergirl67

        Do me a favor and do some research on the history of the Bible. It's never explicitly stated in the Bible about homosexuality, Jesus never said anything about it, and the ONLY reason why Paul's letter to the Corinthians is *in* the Bible is because a group of men decided it when forming the Bible we know today.

        And this is NOT a first amendment issue. He wasn't arrested nor silenced by the government for what he said, which would make it a first amendment issue. Employers and organizations can and do fire employees all of the time for saying or doing offensive or inappropriate things in public.

        No one was trying to get the courts involved, unless it was the Robertson family, which would have been wrong of them to try to curtail the rights of their employer to run their company as they see fit. They can and should fire or suspend people for behaving inappropriately or saying inappropriate things, and his words were inappropriate. He was suspended for that, not for simply being a Christian.

        • DCP the Lesser

          I am quite well informed on the history of the Bible and also can read the Bible in the original languages–Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Homosexuals are mentioned and included in a list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Jesus addressed the subject of marriage and when he did, mentioned that it was between male and female which was originally given by God and sanctioned by him.

          It also was not just a group of men who decided the fate of 1 Corinthians in inclusion in the Bible. You are quite mistaken about this. The letter was very early included in collections before any council decided on content, and several canons predating Trent by centuries included it.
          In fact, the earliest collection of Pauline letters ever found also includes it. This collection was penned by a professional scribe centuries before ecumenical councils decided the contents of the Bible. And, the letter was important to the entire Christian community long before Trent and earlier councils.

          Robertson did not behave inappropriately. He merely stated his beliefs and quoted the Bible. And, eventually, you can bet that the courts will get involved over time, just like when gays tried to sue Bible publishers to try to force them to remove the word “homosexual” from translations that they were distributing. It is just a matter of time before more of this nonsense happens with the assistance of the courts.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Right, marriage in the church. But marriage is also secular. Not everyone is Christian, so why should marriage only reflect the Christian ideology?

            It's still the words of Paul. Not Jesus.

            And he absolutely behaved inappropriately. Just because it was his religious beliefs doesn't give him a free pass to make bigoted remarks. If I went on and said that I hate blacks and Jews and that it was based on my religion, would that be OK? Absolutely not.

          • metazip

            Well now that we all know you hate Jews and Blacks, just what do you like?

          • sunflowergirl67

            It's called an example. Not that I literally hate blacks and Jews. But you didn't answer my query. Why do people get a pass at saying bigoted things if it's supposedly from their religion?

          • Billy Wages

            Is bigotry sinful? If it is, then the bigot is committing a sin.
            They don't get a pass
            People who engage or condone homosexuality are sinful and
            they will be held accountable along with all other sinners.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Yes, there is secular marriage, and marriage ceremonies of many other religions. The trouble is that none of these religions’ texts make allowance for anything other than traditional marriage between female and male.

            Even ancient Egyptian men believed they couldn't make it into Amenta, if they had copulated with men, if you want to go that far back. Roman secular law as well as religious law also was opposed to it. Two emperors were executed for even faking a man-on-man marriage as well as doing things like kissing another man's crotch, and so forth. The government even took it further and tore the mother of one of them to shreds in the streets for teaching such immorality to their sons. That is written in Roman history.

            On the other hand, homosexuality was mandated among the soldiery in Sparta but even in Sparta traditional marriage between male and female was mandatory for all young men after reaching age 28.

            It may be the words of Paul, and not Jesus literally, but most Christians believe that Paul's words in scripture were inspired directly by God. Indeed, those apostles were put there by direct call of Jesus as well as the Holy Spirit, if you believe what the Bible says about it. In addition, as mentioned above, the only kind of marriage that Jesus himself said God sanctioned was between male and female. The Greek text is quite explicit about that.

            And, Robertson did not behave inappropriately. He nowhere in any place said anything about hating gays or anyone else. He explicitly stated that he is to love all men, not judge anyone, and let God sort everyone out in the end. Quoting scripture is not making bigoted remarks. It is nothing more than quoting scripture.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Right, within their own religion marriage is defined by a man and a woman.

            It doesn't matter at all what religious scriptures say about marriage or what ancient civilizations did in the past or what they thought of marriage. It's entirely irrelevant. We live in a different time and culture. We also don't live in a theocracy. So why does it matter what the Bible says when it comes to legal marriage in our country?

            And quoting scripture is bigoted when the scripture is bigoted.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Now you are just being more ridiculous than before. There is nothing bigoted about this text just because homosexuality is in a sin list. Nowhere does the text say to hate homosexuals or that they are subhuman. It simply is stated that homosexuality actively practiced will lead to exclusion from the kingdom of God, and that such were some of the Corinthians to whom Paul is writing. Notice the past tense in the passive?

            Yes, we do live in a new era, a different time and a changing culture. But, it is not a new era in reality. All of this has happened before and it will happen again. Rome fell in part because of rampant immorality such as is building to a head at rapid clip. Sparta ceased to exist. The ancient Greek empire ceased to exist. That is now the direction America is headed. Aren't you proud?

          • Heather

            I concur!! Glad A&E came to their senses..! I stand w/Phil & the DD family..

          • sunflowergirl67

            It may not say it, but it doesn't mean the followers don't do it. And yes, it is bigoted.

            And if America is so morally corrupt, go live somewhere else if you're dissatisfied.

            Remember, I have the first amendment to protect me from your religion and having your people impose your religious beliefs on me.

          • DCP the Lesser

            No true follower of Christ is going to say it or do it. And, no, it is not bigoted to put homosexuality in the sin list because if you are a Bible believer who believes and lives the New Testament, you will agree with the Bible, which puts it in the sin lists.

            Why would I leave America? Other countries are getting worse than here in so many ways, and have more troubles brewing that will make life miserable for many.

            And people also have the First Amendment to protect their speech from those who would impose their views on others who do not believe as they do.

          • lizzie

            Discussion with sunflowergirl 67 is irrelevant. she is a non believer or an atheist. she or he should leave America.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I wouldn't say that. Others are watching and reading, and that adds relevancy to the discussion. I myself was once an atheist. It's a very long story as to what happened to change that stance. There isn't room enough to tell the book-length story properly, so will refrain.

          • sunflowergirl67

            “she or he” is my username not sunflowerGIRL? God you people are idiots.

            So I should leave America for challenging what is in the Bible? Am I not free to believe what I want, or does that only apply to Christians?

          • Richard E Myers

            nope you free to live here as long as you want your also free to follow the anti-christ too if you so choose but you dont want to know where that will get you

          • sunflowergirl67

            Because the anti-Christ is *totally* real.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Actually, there have been many antichrists–and every single one of them in the past was real. There is nothing to stop other real individuals from becoming antichrists. You should use that open mind you claim to have and keep it open. After all, a mind is like a parachute. It only functions when open.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Now you sound like you're smoking crack. There have been many antichrists? Like, seriously?

          • DCP the Lesser

            Nope. You just don't know the Bible very well and likely never did. I'll give you one example for your consideration. See 1 John 2:18-19 in any version of the Bible. I'll quote it from the NIV for convenience.

            “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

            You will note that John identifies the many antichrists who had come as former Christians here. He also uses the word for “many” here.

            The fact is, many Christians seem to have missed the significance of the text on multiple levels. For John, it was the last hour to an event that he believed would come to consummation in his time. He did not say that it was the end of the world. It was the last hour before something. But, he himself stated that there were in his time of writing many antichrists.

            But there has been no crack-smoking here. And, if many had already come, is it so difficult to be open to the possibility that yet others may come?

          • sunflowergirl67

            *yawn*

          • DCP the Lesser

            That's why you don't really know the Bible, just the time-worn nonsense often repeated ad nauseam by atheists and those of like mindset to assuage quilt and justify unbelief. But in any case, as you can see I was right about there being many antichrists. It is easier to yawn and wave discussion with the hand than it is to admit error.

          • sunflowergirl67

            I'm not an atheist. I just don't believe in most of what the Bible says as literal.

          • DCP the Lesser

            “I'm not an atheist.”

            I do not recall ever saying that you were. But what you have stated several times actually comes from atheists and those of like mindset.

            “I just don't believe in most of what the Bible says as literal.”

            Interpretation: “Whatever I don't like and whatever makes myself and my friends feel guilty I don't take literally.”

            The truth is, much of the text is intended to be taken literally. That which is not intended to be taken literally is written in such a way as to see that it is symbolic or allegory, and not intended to be taken literally. There is a difference. In some cases, only context can govern. In some cases we have no archaeological evidence for an event so people often use that as a reason for not taking certain historical details literally.

            But, when Jesus uses certain kinds of words in phraseology that lends itself to literal reading, and when sin lists do not fit into allegorical texts, they are intended to be taken literally and are literal. The sin list and consequence in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are intended to be taken literally. But you always can fall back to your own rule that anything you don't like cannot be taken literally by you, so I suppose that there is temporary solace in that for you. :-)

          • sunflowergirl67

            Then why mention “the atheists” in like every post? It's annoying. Just like when anyone criticizes anything the GOP does, they're a “lib.”

            there's literally nothing you can say to change my mind about the Bible. It's like you think you can change my mind. Sorry, not going to happen.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I have zero intention of trying to change your mind. It already is like cement–all mixed up and permanently set. No, I post for the benefit and understanding of others who might be reading these posts. Well, that is at least until the censorship genie begins working…

          • sunflowergirl67

            I'll believe that when I see it.

            You do realize that the First Amendment is also freedom *from* religion, right?

          • DCP the Lesser

            It can be utilized toward that end, yes. It also can be used as a club, as it has been over the years as one old monument after another, that people never gave much though concerning until recent time, is removed from public places where they were historic landmarks. You'll believe it when you see it? You haven't been keeping up on your current affairs. It already has begun.

          • sunflowergirl67

            I meant, I'll believe that people are Christians acting like Christians, I'll believe it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            If a person who claims to be a Christian isn't physically attacking gays and teaching others to hate them, they are practicing what they preach in at least that sense. People are known by their “fruits” (what they do in response to their faith and level of belief) and their actions tend showing what kind of faith they have. It really is that simple.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Oh so they can talk about what degenerates they are, but as long as they aren't attacking them, it's fine.

            I see.

            But what it really comes down to, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

          • DCP the Lesser

            They are sinners in need of Christ, as are we all. As to being degenerates, that is for God to decide. And, of course, it goes without saying that whatever takes place in the bedroom is no one's business. It should remain there.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Flaunted in public? I wasn't aware gay couples were regularly having sex in public. A gay couple holding hands or kissing or being affectionate is no different than a heterosexual couple holding hands or kissing or being affectionate in public.

            Unless you expect everyone to not touch or be couples in public. Or are you simply offended that someone who loves someone than you dare to go out in public with their partner?

          • DCP the Lesser

            Depends on where you live. I have lived in places and traveled and seen some pretty disgusting displays of affection from members of the gay community. In one case, a guy was sucking off two other gay guys at once in an alley where anyone who had his/her window open could see them.

            Two gay guys across the street in one apartment where I lived knew my window was open one night because it was hot and I was trying to get fresh air. The guy looks right out the window at me, smiles and drops his towel right in front of his window and went at it with his gay lover right in front of me! I was quite angry that I had to shut my window and pull the shades. That is something I never will get out of my head.

            I speak from what disgusting things I have had the unfortunate circumstance to see.

            Along with that, I saw some other pretty nasty things in alleys during gay pride parades when I lived in Chicago, including some of them stepping out of the parade for a few moments and defecating on the sidewalks.

            Frankly, some displays of affection in public are not too bad. But when people decide to get disgusting about it, it becomes a problem. As I said, it should stay in the bedroom and that applies to everyone, gay or straight.

          • sunflowergirl67

            You do realize that having sex in public is illegal, right? You talk as though every gay couple does that. They don't.

            “Two gay guys across the street…”

            How is that story any different than a man and a woman having sex with their blinds up for all to see?

            “during gay pride parades”

            You do realize that at gay pride parades, it's at a GAY PRIDE PARADE, right?

            “defecating on the sidewalks”

            You see worse in college towns with drunk coeds.

            “it should stay in the bedroom and that applies to everyone, gay or straight.”

            that's not what you said before. You said that it (I'm guessing, LGBT sexual preferences) shouldn't be “flaunted in public” which is *very* different than what you described, having *sex* in public.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I suggest you go back and read more carefully what I said before.

            On the first story, the difference is that these three guys did not care to at least go into a house or apartment. They just found an alley and started their business in the street like animals. And I don't appreciate straights leaving their blinds up, either. But, the guys in the apartment across the street-alley did what they did deliberately and I very much did not appreciate it.

            So, gay pride includes defecating on sidewalks? That somehow makes it alright? So, things also done in college towns, often containing immoral cesspools in their own right, justifies such gay public behavior?

            I have seen many gays groping each other in the open streets, and doorways, too. That is not sex, and I don't appreciate seeing such things. I also don't appreciate it when straights do things even close to that either. “Get a room!” comes to mind.

          • sunflowergirl67

            I really don't see your point.

            That is so NOT the same as a gay couple holding hand in public and acting normally. Having sex in an alleyway is NOT normal behavior. I've never seen that before.

            “So, gay pride includes [...]”

            Uh, no? My point was, you made it sound as though that's a “gay” thing. It's not. So I don't understand the point of bringing it up as gay people “flaunting” themselves in public.

            “I don't appreciate seeing such things”

            Then look the other way and don't go to gay bars.

            So what DOES “flaunting” it in public *actually* mean, since your examples are well, not real examples.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Why would you see my point or even try? You yourself admitted that you don't even read most of what I have posted. How could you possibly try to understand?

            As to what you have seen and haven't seen, you have been lucky. Try living where gays are nearly a majority in the neighborhood. Your eyes will be opened quickly, and what you will see will be “burned onto your retinas” for life.

            My examples are real examples. It was what I have observed and wished that I hadn't. Just because you haven't seen things like that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

            I do not care about hand-holding. I am not all that concerned about kisses, either. Mashing faces and groping is where I draw the line, gay or straight, and gay men do this a lot more in public than many straights I have observed. But, again, I suppose that it all depends on where you live.

            I do look the other way when something comes across my notice that I do not want to see, and I do avoid gay bars. I don't want to have to deal violently with someone who cannot take no for an answer or end up tied up on someone's rack because something was slipped into my drink. And, yes, some gays are forceful. I was working in the Boston area for a few months and during that time local law enforcement were on the lookout for a gang composed of gays. Why? Because they were grabbing young men off the streets against their wills and gang-sodomizing them in the alleys. Holy shades of Sodom and Gomorrah!

            I generally avoid all bar scenes, gay or straight, frankly, unless certain situations require it. Too much nastiness going on in and around places like that.

          • sunflowergirl67

            “Try living where gays are nearly a majority in the neighborhood. Your eyes will be opened quickly, and what you will see will be “burned onto your retinas” for life.”

            How do you know I don't live in an area where the LGBT community is a majority? How do you know I don't go to gay clubs? How do you know I don't know what gay people do?

            You don't.

            If you don't like it, then move. You choose to live there. that would be like me choosing to live in Chicago or Detroit and complaining about the crime.

            So what DO you mean by “flaunting it in public”? What you describe is not “flaunting it in public.” What you describe is an extreme example used to only show what you really think of gay people, that they are degenerates.

            “I don't want to have to deal violently with someone who cannot take no for an answer or end up tied up on someone's rack because something was slipped into my drink.”

            Do you honestly think that some man would ever want to fuck such a disgusting bigot such as yourself? Please, don't flatter yourself. Gay men have no interest in drugging and raping strangers, especially people like you.

            “Because they were grabbing young men off the streets against their wills and gang-sodomizing them in the alleys.”

            You do realize that's what women have to deal with *on a daily basis*, right? I feel no sympathy for you.

          • DCP the Lesser

            You clearly do not live in such a neighborhood. As to attending the club scene, I would not be able to say whether you do or not, or even which clubs you attended. I'd have to search through your metadata and pull credit card receipts to know where you go and spend your time.

            Sometimes, people do really have the choice as to where they live. Right now, I live where such things do not happen. In addition, if you are instructed that you have to live in a place as part of your job or otherwise, you really do not have much choice. I will say no more on that subject.

            And, yes, in all seriousness, I have had gays try to pick up on me. Just a couple months ago one stopped me in a Walmart to tell me that I “looked nice.” You don't know me at all. Nor do you know what I look like or anything about me. You can only make assumptions. Of course, my appearance changes from time to time as needs arise, so even there you would not know me even if you knew me. But, hey, if it makes you feel better to think the way you do, go right ahead and continue thinking that way. Anything can be your excuse anyway.

            And, I have explained exactly what I meant, in detail. Go back and read the full comments instead of skipping around and skimming.

            And, by the way, I do not consider that all gays are degenerates like you want me to lump them all together into. It would be so much more convenient for you were I to do so, wouldn't it? The ones who gang-rape young men are degenerates. All rapists, gay or straight, are degenerates. Gays who do it in the streets like animals are degenerates. Gays who cut glory holes in restroom stalls and bathroom walls are degenerates.

            But, don't expect me to lump them all together. It isn't going to happen, no matter how much you want it to happen. Do I think active practice of homosexuality is sin? Absolutely. It all is sin, and I take 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 literally because it was intended to be taken literally. It is literal but since it offends you and friends it is easy to dismiss as not to be taken literally. It's all about assuaging guilt, living in denial, and doing whatever feels good whenever one wants, with no moral compass to restrict.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Oh my God, another man said you “looked nice.” The horror! I deal with that shit on a daily basis as a woman. Spare me.

            “I take it you don't remember the case of Jeffrey Dahmer.”

            Jeffrey Dahmer was also insane.

            If you want to play that game, then I can bring up every serial rapist and murderer and compare straight men to them, and say that all straight men want to rape women.

            In all sincerity, I am sorry that you and your friend experienced that. But that doesn't mean that *all* gay men are like that, just like I don't think all straight men want to rape me because I was once sexually assaulted by a man.

            Sexual assault and rape is about *power* and not about sex. People can pretty much get sex whenever and wherever they want.

            But dismissing people as “sinful” because they have a different sexual preference and lifestyle than you is wrong. And it's based on the words of a book written at a time when gay people were persecuted and executed, so no wonder the Bible says those things about it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I am not asking for pity or to be spared anything, really. I also do not think that all homosexual men are of the same mindset, just as I do not think that all homosexuals are degenerates. You cannot pigeonhole me into a category that easily, as much as you would like to do so It is just not going to happen.

            And, as I have stated elsewhere, I am dismissing no one but all of mankind are sinners in need of Christ, including myself. But, sin is sin.

            What is interesting about the New Testament is that it transcends its time and place. It does not reflect a purely first century standpoint. It neither advocates sexualizing young boys by men (a common practice in Greek society at the time), mandatory homosexuality for soldiers, who also were required to marry women by age 28 (as in Spartan society), nor the killing of homosexuals and their parents for their practices (a Roman and Middle Eastern mindset). The text is of value and it proclaims sin and the solution to sin–Christ and the change that comes from within from following the influence of the Holy Spirit.

            Although the New Testament was written during a time when homosexuals were severely persecuted and in some cases executed in some places, it does not reflect such a mindset of the times. It reflects mercy, repentance and the possibility and chance for change from within–for all mankind.

          • Acer

            I do appreciate the way DCP the Lesser is handling the conversation with sunflowergirl67. I have learned several great points from the conversation. The whole thing (with Phils comments) is simply a clash of world views. Sunflower is right, he or she, does not have to believe in the Bible. However, if it is raining, and I do not believe it is raining, then I will still get wet. We can deny Truth, but that does not make it untrue. Thanks again for the good conversation. Sunflower, I do hope you can work through some of your anger.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Thank you, and you are welcome. The proper way in which people learn to deal with their differences (or even with a clash of world views, as you put it) is through reasoned (or, at least reasonable) dialogue. I also agree with your rain/truth analogy.

          • Billy Wages

            The amendments are temporary and they won't protect you
            from the wrath of God.
            Your idiotic excuses and lack of reasoning don't excuse
            you from the Word of God.

          • Bubba

            Actually, you don't. The first amendment states that Congress- not any other entity- cannot impose a religion on anyone who is a citizen of USA, nor can Congress prohibit the free exercise thereof. As a matter of fact, all States promoted Christianity and their Constitutions cite prayers and such. Homosexuals were and are now considered perverted reprobates- as Phil Robertson so eloquently pointed out, they prefer a man's anus for sex in the stead of a woman's vagina. Gross. Anybody who had rather suck another man's penis rather than kiss a woman, and put his own into another man's anus rather than in a woman's vagina is sicko.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Um, what?

            Congress *can* prohibit the exercise of religion. It's why human sacrifice is illegal. It's why marrying underage girls and having sex with them is illegal. You can exercise the right to practice your religion insofar as it does not infringe on my rights.

          • Paratrooperbob

            again you are wrong! You do not have a right to protection from religion….you have the right to believe what you want or not….there is no such thing as freedom FROM religion! Feel free not to participate or not listen but no law or.Right says FROM it says OF!

          • sunflowergirl67

            Seriously. It's the 1st Amendment. It prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. It's freedom from religion and freedom of religion.

            I DO have a right to protection from religion. As in, separation of church and state.

          • Billy Wages

            We can't over-ride the Bible by making laws. If we could do
            that with marriage, we could do it with sin. How would you
            like to have the government telling you what is sinful and
            what punishment you will receive.
            God's laws are permanent. Mans laws are temporary.

          • ReallyStudiedTheBible

            Well stated, thank you.

          • DCP the Lesser

            No problem. And, thank you.

          • lizzie

            like reading your smart discussion with’ really studied the bible’ hope people learned a little bit of the Bible.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Thank you. I hope that some can learn a little bit by discussions like these. I also would hope the same would come out of discussion of other religious texts of other religions as well, should such discussions occur. It is important to understand those around you and the best way to do that is to read and try to understand the religious texts of various religions, and discuss the differences and similarities, as well as the historical background, claims regarding the text, and merits of each.

        • Try thinking sometimes.

          so we have to bake your cakes, and take your pictures, but god forbid that we'd have an opinion!

          • sunflowergirl67

            You can have an opinion, sure. No one is saying that you cannot. But if you say it in public, on TV, on the radio, in an interview, be prepared for the consequences.

          • lizzie

            right on….

          • Richard E Myers

            if you can have an opinion but cant say it how is that freedom of speech or is it just for your freedom of speech

          • sunflowergirl67

            How can he not say it? Did he get arrested or killed or imprisoned for it? Was his tongue cut out? Was he punished by the government for saying it? Is Congress currently enacting laws forbidding Phil Robertson from speaking his mind during an interview?

          • duck fan

            yes, and then there is the Jessie Jacksons, he will do anything to get in the public eye, but you know it was ok for him to take all that money and spend it on himself and then say oh, I am sorry . he makes me sick.

          • metazip

            One cake I would never bake.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Um, that makes no sense whatsoever.

          • Billy Wages

            None at all.

          • metazip

            neither do your comments…

          • DCP the Lesser

            Well said.

        • metazip

          Correction, free speech is one of our inalienable rights that the framers codified in the constitution to restrict governments’ overreaching hands, which they knew would eventually happen. Why a lot of people were arrested by the FBI denying civil liberties to others which happens to include free speech.

          Our rights and freedoms don't go away just because men say so. They never go away, just restricted by bullies as a we are experiencing now and has happened throughout history.

          • beowulf32

            And its time to put a stop to that for good.

          • sunflowergirl67

            OMG you mean Phil Robertson was arrested and put in jail for saying that? And the government is infringing on his rights to say what he believes in? And now Congress is trying to pass a law saying that people can't talk about their religious beliefs?

          • Billy Wages

            The laws of God don't go away. But your Constitutional
            rights can be taken away.
            Anything that the government can give you, they can take
            away from you.

          • metazip

            Again, not gone away, just restricted by bullies…

        • beowulf32

          Well your wrong it is in the bible that “man shall not lay with man”. and no business has the right to say what we can and can not say out side of the work place, its none of there business at all. If employer`s want to play that, then we can play that to by getting dirt on them and using it against them.

          • sunflowergirl67

            When it's in public and you are a representative of said company, they absolutely do have a right to do that. I don't hear anyone whining about that woman who got fired for her insensitive tweet about AIDS and Africa.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I think it was wrong to fire her for that. She may have been an idiot but to fire her over that? It's pretty ridiculous, in my view. What she did on her own time, stupid or not, is her own business. But, that is just me I suppose.

          • sunflowergirl67

            But it wasn't on her time. She was a PR representative for her company. If she had said it in private to her friends, then they can't fire her for it. But she put it out there on the internet, for everyone to see. Fair game to get fired.

          • DCP the Lesser

            She was a PR representative but did she not use her private account to tweet that message to her friends? Yes, it was there for people to see but that still is a bit ridiculous to fire her for stupidity. Had she been on the company clock that might have been another thing. I do not recall that she was on the clock when she tweeted.

          • Billy Wages

            It makes no difference under the law.

          • sunflowergirl67

            It wasn't private. Anyone could read it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            “Private” has multiple meanings, and you know it. It was not a work account, was it?

          • sunflowergirl67

            Doesn't matter. They still have the right to fire her. It was public. With her name on it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Sure. Any employer pretty much has the right to fire anybody for just about any reason in many states. Doesn't make it morally right, though. But, it also really depends upon what is in the contract, if any exists, as to legality.

          • Billy Wages

            In states which have the ‘Right to Work’ laws, you can be
            terminated for no reason whatsoever. But in all states you
            can be fired for anything that reflects poorly on your employer.

          • metazip

            So that was you?

          • sunflowergirl67

            Yes, that was me *rolls eyes*.

          • metazip

            Figured as much.

          • sunflowergirl67

            It doesn't surprise me you don't understand sarcasm.

            Yes, I am the woman who got fired for writing that tweet and I'm defending the company's right to fire me. :-/

          • Billy Wages

            You're wrong. How many times have you heard about some-
            one being fired for drunk driving? People get fired for things
            every day for misbehavior or verbal offenses which are
            neither criminal or sinful. (Drunk driving is illegal)

        • ReallyStudiedTheBible

          Well- I have a degree in Christian Ministry, and I am not sure where sunflowergirl67 is coming from. The Bible does address homosexuality; the original text is in Aramic, Herbew and Greek, so excuse them for not having a word that directly translates to homosexual, but the context around the acts and attractions are clearly translated. And stating “because a group of men decided it when forming the Bible we know today” is a bit generic- please elaborate more on the methods and reasoning used in order to be credible.
          I realize Phil's words were a bit crass, but for folks who believe in man + women relationships only, the intimacy portion of it is difficult to accept in the context of a same-sex relationship. I will concede that some of Phil's words were inappropriate, but he said what alot of slatwart heterosexuals were thinking. It doesn't make a whole bunch of sense, the Bible clearly teaches the act of same sex intamacy as sin along with other uncharitable acts.
          I for one am not convinced that the far left feels just Phil's words were inappropriate; the news outlets keep calling Phil's scripture quotes “anti-gay remarks.” I would like to see these same news outlets publish the facts, which are “scripture does not support the homosexual act and Christians such as Phil Robertson choose to take God at His Word.”

          • DCP the Lesser

            “The Bible does address homosexuality; the original text is in Aramic, Herbew and Greek, so excuse them for not having a word that directly translates to homosexual, but the context around the acts and attractions are clearly translated.”

            While you are correct about Hebrew and Aramaic not having precise terms, Greek actually had two terms. One term designated the passive partner and another designated the active partner. One of them (the latter, literally meaning “male-bedding male” or “male-bedder” (the term is masculine so it is speaking of men and not women)) even existed in at least two dialects (Attic and Ionic) so it had to have predated Paul.

            You also are correct that the acts and attractions are clearly translated. How much more direct can one be when the text actually says: “You (masculine) shall not lie with a man as you would a woman”?

            The commonly seen shellfish argument is a moot point since the New Testament clearly suspended most of the dietary laws of the Mosaic Law. But, the New Testament did not suspend the moral laws. It only lessened the penalty of death to eternal punishment in the afterlife.

          • dp

            well with your degree you should realize that a major percentage of the bible does not translate and the blanks are filled in by mortal men. All of the new testament is man made It is a book to appease humans who are just not solid enough to live and fulfill their life without some promise of a reward

          • DCP the Lesser

            That actually isn't true. A lot of it does translate. In a few places blanks must be filled. For the passages dealing with homosexuality, it all translates across. There are no blanks to fill in here because we have a lot more sources than just the New Testament texts to provide information relative to the meanings of the words and how they were used. That is what the Dead Sea Scrolls and the texts from the trash heaps and tombs of Egypt have helped us to learn.

            We also have the literal meanings of particular words that are crystal clear, except to those who are willing even to lie about their meanings in an effort to evade them.

          • sunflowergirl67

            But what it really comes down to is this: It doesn't matter AT ALL what is in the Bible because it ONLY applies to people who believe it.

            Do you think that Hindu laws forbidding the consumption of beef apply to you? No, they don't, you're not Hindu. Do Islamic law forbidding alcohol and pork apply to you? No, you're not Muslim.

            So really, what it comes down to is that people are just sick and tired of Christians spouting off on what they consider are sins, because IT DOESN'T MATTER. Do you like it when Muslims go off and tell you what a sinner you are and what religious laws you are breaking? I bet you don't. So why do Christians feel the need to tell everyone what sinners everyone else is based on *their* beliefs?

            Just shut up about it already and keep it to yourself and in your church services.

          • Richard E Myers

            you poor unfortunate girl you can disclaim the Bible all you want but when you take your last breath you will know the truth but it will be too late and you will have noi excuse because you know the truth but refuse to accept it .you athiests are all alike you want morals for everyone else except your self yes you may do anything you like while on this earth but in the end your will answer for every idle word and deed you have done in you lifetime unless you repent and accept the sacrifice Jesus paid for all sinners

          • sunflowergirl67

            Ok then.

          • perfectarc

            This is why I have learned to reject religion, hubris and moral superiority. There is nothing that convinces me that there is no deity than to read the rubbish coming from those who believe they are morally superior to others. Keep up the good work. And thanks.

          • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

            eh, doubt it. We'll see, or rather we won't

          • think4myself

            Actually, it applies to all of humanity. If the religion of Hinduism is truth, then in the end I will suffer the consequences of having acted in a manner that does not align with truth. Personally, I don't care at all if Muslims tell me I am sinning because I have spent the greater part of my life in search for “TRUTH” and believe that I have found it in Jesus Christ. We tell other people BECAUSE we believe it is truth and so others can be saved, because we REALLY BELIEVE that “there is no other name by which you can be saved.” If you reject it that is your freedom to do so, but if you have never heard it, shame on us. Nothing is more important than being 100% sure about God, because you are accurate in this: if he is not real it does not matter; nothing could be less important. I, however, know him to be truth, therefore I will never “shut up about it and keep it to myself”, how selfish and hateful would that be!

          • sunflowergirl67

            Except you're assuming people *want* to be saved by your religion. It's very self-centered.

          • DCP the Lesser

            “Just shut up about it already and keep it to yourself and in your church services.”

            If Jesus had commanded Christians to be quiet about such things, they would be. But Jesus and his apostles taught to do otherwise.

          • Donna

            The Bible mention homosexuality 4 times, I believe. Old Testament –Genesis (written by Moses) and Leviticus (written by Moses). In the New Testament it is mentioned in Corinthians (written by Paul) and Romans (written by Paul).
            Jesus does not speak about homosexuality. So for all the
            books in the Bible we have 2 authors who are specifically against homosexuality and each put it in 2 different books that they wrote.

          • Donna

            And, yes, Phil Robertson loosely paraphrased Leviticus (written by Moses) and Roman (written by Paul). Jesus
            was very specific about divorce and remarrying and we
            don't go around preaching “you sinned” to every divorced person we meet. I think people need to be more honest with themselves on why they are so focused on love interests for some and not for others. Because if we get down to it,
            all fornification was considered a sin…and we don't follow that one anymore. We don't stone people for adultery either anymore. And I don't think anyone is in a position to be God. What God wants to forgive or not is up to God.

          • DCP the Lesser

            You forgot 1 Timothy and Jude. Jesus also specifically states that marriage as intended by God is between male and female. He actually uses the words for male and female in the Greek text of the New Testament. That addresses and excludes homosexuals from the divine institution of marriage.

          • Steve

            Homosexuality as expressed in the Bible is a sex act and it is listed along with all sorts of sex acts that God says are sin.
            If I am a gay man would you call me a homosexuality? No I would be a homosexual not a homosexuality. They are two different things. One is a sex act the other is a human being.
            There is only one instance of sex being acceptable in the Bible and that is between a man and a woman . . . in the missionary position . . . for the sole purpose of having a child. That's the only one.
            Being gay is not a sin. Having sex is a sin. Why do people insist on holding up gay people as automatic sinners but not other adult people who are not married or even those who are married and are constantly having sex for pleasure rather for the sole purpose of having a child? hypocrisy is astonishing prevalent in so called Christians (of which I am one).
            Calling out gay people for YOUR perceived sin is simply wrong. You are deciding that they are running around all day long with their tongues hanging out looking for children to molest. In reality, they are just people going to work, playing baseball, shopping in stores and doing ALL the same things everybody else does all day long and could possibly be celibate as well. Something that you could not possibly know when you are passing judgment.

        • Billy Wages

          Check Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

        • societysucks

          Sunflowergirl67, you are an idiot.

        • Sysi

          Genesis 2:7 Adam & Eve. not Adam and Steve! When God created man and woman.and then said to replenish the earth,God,was showing mankind what he expected. anything other than that is sin in Gods eyes! alcoholics can make excuses for that sin, or if you lie, hate-kill, adultery ect.we have all made excuses for the sin we have done…But again if we look at the beginning, when God created Adam and Eve and we see what God had in mind for his children, and how we were supposed to live according to Gods Holy word….anything other than that is a Sin!..no way of getting around it you speak of it being Pauls,words about some of you were effeminate! But again I say to you read Genesis 2:7 this was Gods plan and since God never changes Numbers 23:19–Malachi 3:6 and also.our God is the same today yesterday and forever.. he will never change neither his word–But we are promised in John 2:1 that we sin not–And if we sin,We have an advocate with the Father the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • sunflowergirl67

            That means absolutely nothing to be because i don't follow what the Bible says.

          • infidel1

            it is useless to have a rational debate with someone when basic facts are not agreed upon.

            the issue with quoting biblical scripture is that much of it is metaphor and allegory. this was the main teaching method for earlier generations (examples of which can be heard in native american culture). it evolved from something called an ‘oral tradition.’ well before the invention of computers, books and even written language – which in earliest times was something only the ‘elites’ (to coin a popular word) knew how to do – it was an effective means of communicating big (and important) concepts/symbols. and language itself evolved from symbols.
            nevertheless, biblical
            scripture was a mix of some history, letters from one dude to another,
            ‘wise’ sayings and allegorical stories (some even of which came from other cultures – like the summarian myth of the great flood). much of this information was never
            intended to be taken literally, let alone distributed to the common masses. in fact, the bible as we know it is a
            result of a few men deciding what would be a cohesive set of ideas (a book) and
            then base an organization around it (a church). they left out other ‘books’
            (christian scriptures) because they did not fit their intention – or for some other reason. however, the bible
            was never really meant to be read by just anyone. but it became accessible and then a bunch of other people began interpreting it
            according to their relative ability to interpret meaning. the
            problem is – is that that interpretation is subjective – there no longer exists authoritative ‘training’ on how to interpret it – which once existed. so the result was that some people began to understand the bible literally.
            this fact is only complicated by the number of translations the book has had to endure – which never took into account varying cultural norms. fortunately we can gain much insight from the nag hammdi library and the dead sea scrolls – both discovered in the later half of the 20th century (ie: recently) – and performing comparative studies.

            someone in
            an earlier comment brought up the idea that somehow jesus spoke of
            marriage being a hetero affair. this is an example of misinterpreting.
            the story is a parable, not any kind of pronouncement or law – just like
            all of jesus’ words. this is how he communicated transcendent ideas –
            it is a language of the heart – not head (intellect). hell, even jesus’ followers didn't understand wtf he was trying to teach! (remember thomas?)

            maybe before
            anyone goes off on doing the easiest thing (blindly quoting the bible),
            it might help to not only study the bible as literature, but also as
            history, philosophy, linguistically and comparatively. have a modicum of intellectual
            and rational integrity when you debate an issue. platitudes are a complete waste
            of time.

          • DCP the Lesser

            “someone in an earlier comment brought up the idea that somehow jesus spoke of marriage being a hetero affair. this is an example of misinterpreting.”

            Nope. Jesus used the words for male and female. Learn Greek before spouting off about something you don't know.

            I do agree as to the rest of what you wrote, however.

    • Row D

      I agree, when someone says Happy Holidays, I respond with you have a Merry Christmas. And like you and Phil say, homo's and animal hosers don't go to heaven. Really, do you people think that licking the fecies off your gay lover should land you a spot in heaven, get real.

    • TZap19

      DN, your argument isn't with Phil Robertson. He did not compare anything. He merely stated what the bible clearly says about different types of sin. Your argument is with the bible. You are free to argue against it all day, every day, until the day that you find out if it's true or not. Question for you….if you freely choose to quit believing in gravity, will you float away???? I don't think so. My point is that what we believe means nothing when compared with truth. Go ahead and argue with the bible, but the bottom line is this…God loves all people, but He hates all sin…and He is the one who defines sin, and He was clear with us about all of that. He gave us one way to be redeemed from sin, and that is accepting the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made for our sin. Amazing Grace for sure.
      And when some says “Happy Holidays”, what is the real driving holiday that has made this season what it is around the world? It's Christmas. No one can argue that these lesser celebrated and made up holidays drive this season. And one other thing…the word “holiday” comes from two words “holy” and “day”, so when you wish someone “Happy Holidays”, you are telling them to enjoy the Holy Days that we are celebrating. You can't get away from it…the day Jesus was born was a very “Holy Day”…so Happy Holidays!!! And Merry Christmas.

      • Billy Wages

        excellent.

      • patrick

        jesus was born in October, so all the holiday wishes should be heard in the month of october

        • lizzie

          in some country Christmas starts in October…. Christmas shopping……

        • MissAnnie1000 .

          So how do you know that Jesus was born in October?

          • Anon

            Google it you moron. I can't even be bothered explaining the origins of Christmas to you.

          • think4myself

            He was born on the Hebrew feast of Tabernacles. We can know when Elizabeth conceived when you put the pieces of information together and then you can count from there, as Mary was 6 months behind her. Then a basic understanding of God's working would dictate that he was born on the feast day that God himself ordained to prophesy when God makes his tabernacle with men – i.e. “God with us”. Ironically however, an in-depth study on the star of Bethlehem which you can watch on YouTube, throws an interesting possibility that the wise men gave their gifts to Jesus on 12-25. which would be pretty much a God thing that we give to honor the birth of Christ on the same day that the wise men gave their gifts to Jesus. Pretty cool. ps – the feast of Tabernacles falls in Sept-Oct on our calendar.

          • DCP the Lesser

            While a cool thing to think that Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles, there are problems with that approach. During this time people were to fashion “booths” or tabernacles of leaves and so forth and spend their time in them. This is not implied to have been the case with the shepherds who were watching over their flocks. This is weak on its own. But, this is not all.

            Luke gives the actual month for the annunciation of Christ's conception, which was given as the sixth month, which could either be literally the sixth month or the sixth month from the time of the conception of John the Baptist. That would be Adar, which would have been sometime during the time frame of our mid-to-late February to mid-to-late March.

            The annunciation of the conception of John the Baptist likely took place on or around the Day of Atonement, in Tishri, the same month as the Feast of Tabernacles. We can come to this figure by counting backwards from the sixth month, if we take Luke to refer to the actual sixth month or the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy.

            Add nine months to that and the very earliest Jesus could have been born–barring premature birth–would have been sometime in early November to early December, and at the latest sometime after mid December. Jesus could well have been born on Hanukkah, which also would be significant. Without knowing the precise days it is impossible to know for a certainty.

        • DCP the Lesser

          “jesus was born in October…”

          We don't really know that for a certainty. For example, the primary lambing season of Awassi ewes in Israel was/is during December-January. There is also the question of whether the ministry took three Passovers or four. If the “feast of the Jews” was Passover, it would be four Passovers.

          I also have seen and read various scholars give differing reasons for why Jesus most likely would have been born in December, in October, or sometime in April. The Feast of Tabernacles would be a nice, symbolic time for him to have been born but that is not guaranteed and is one of several speculations. We just do not know for a certainty. We can guess but that is about it.

          The wise men, however, did not show up on the day of the birth, or even a few months later. By the time the wise men arrived, Joseph and Mary were living in a house and the child Jesus had to have been at least two years old. The Greek of the passage implies all of this as well as the time when the star first appeared, as demanded by Herod.

          It does not really matter, at any rate, considering that the actual birth date was unimportant to early Christians. If it had been important it would have been commemorated very early. The true focus for the earliest Christians was on the resurrection, while his death was commemorated frequently with bread and wine as a representation of his broken body and shed blood.

      • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

        OMG do not compare a fairy tale called Christianity with factual provable science like gravity. That's #1. #2 the bible also says if you divorce you should get death as well as adultery. That would kill off like 80% of Christians right now wouldn't it? Bible also says those who don't observe the Sabbath, you know not working at all only praying and fasting on Sundays should get death just like it says committing homosexual act s brings the death penalty, but since Christians are notoriously hypocritical I'm sure you also ignore that little tidbit of the bible huh? Jesus by the way said it is easier for a camel a beast that can weigh hundred of pounds to get through the eye of a sowing needle than it is for Phil Robertson to get into heaven his damn self while he thinks he has a right to speak to others sin. In Gods eyes at least according to his son who came to earth to save man kind, Phil Robertson has done enough evil becoming wealthy to automatically exclude him from heaven. Wonder how he meshes the fact that his savior hates his wealth while he is thumping that bible?

        • think4myself

          Wow are you ignorant! Please don't try and speak authoritatively on a subject that know little about – and understand less about. You have misapplied everything you said about the Bible; no wonder you reject Jesus. There is too much error in your post to even correct without writing a book, and the book is already written.

          • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

            Sweet heart as a person who grew up in the Baptist church who's father is a pastor, I guarantee I know more than you. Take a look at Exodus. It plainly says if you do not observe the Sabbath you will be stoned to death. It even tells a story about Moses and the children of Israel catching a man picking up sticks on the Sabbath and him being condemned to death by being stoned to death outside of the temple for his crime. Once again Christian hypocrisy is prevalent. But I didn't write the book. I'm just quoting it and in the right context too by the way. If Phil Robertson really wants to be Christ like he needs to forsake all riches, hence Jesus’ camel metaphor, and follow Jesus taking care of the poor. You do as well or you're living the life of a hypocrite. You have no room to judge anyone and neither does Phil Robertson. You don't even follow your own religion correctly, but you have the audacity to judge others. Nothing I said was misapplied and totally on topic
            want to talk about sin? How about every Christian that has committed adultery, every Christian who does observe the Sabbath would have been put to death right along with the gays. So stick that in your corn pipe and smoke hypocrite.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Lots of out of context nonsense here–again. The things to which you refer were under the Law of Moses, a lot of which no longer is pertinent to Christians, such as the ritual observances and dietary restrictions. Remember, the Law was a schoolmaster or tutor to lead to Christ, but when Christ and faith came the schoolmaster no longer was needed. (See Galatians 3:24-25). See also Ephesians 2:14-15 and Colossians 2:14.

            This is why the penalty for sabbath violations is not death in Christianity. The Sabbath of the Jews was the shadow and Christ and the Lord's Day the reality, in most of Christianity.

            This is why shellfish eating no longer is forbidden to Christians. We are no longer subject to such dietary and ritual purity laws on specific foods like pork and shellfish, and clothing.

            This same situation also is why circumcision no longer is required for all Christians and why blood sacrifices of animals no longer are necessary for Christians. Christ himself did away with those things by nailing them to his cross and becoming our eternal sacrifice for sins. It is why Christians don't kill those who commit adultery.

            But the moral code remains in effect because Christ and his apostles continued it under what Christians believe was the direction of the Holy Spirit. Christ in his teaching used an inclusive term that refers to all kinds of immorality, as wsell as a few specifics. But it also must be remembered that not everything that Jesus taught, said and did were written in what we have left of the many gospels and other texts that were written and now lost. We only have what was intended to cause belief in him, as well as the regulatory letters of those he left in charge both during his life and after his resurrection from the dead.

            Paul and others used even more specific terms, but all are rooted in those portions of the Law that remain validated after the schoolmaster was no longer necessary.

            Come on! You claimed to be the daughter of a Baptist pastor and you don't know even these simple facts? Sounds to me like you weren't paying attention. It is certain that you don't even know your own religion or even its sacred texts.

            As to being rich, Jesus never said that no rich man would ever enter into the kingdom of heaven, only that it is more difficult for that to happen than for a rope (or camel, depending on Bible version) to go through the eye of a needle. You omit the rest of what Jesus did say and is written. You know, the part you skipped about all things that are impossible with men being possible with God.

            You also omit understanding the context. The context of the remark was in a man who could not bring himself to do as Jesus commanded him. Phil Robertson's name isn't mentioned in a list of rich men who are forced to sell all they have but I'm sure that if Jesus ever commanded him to sell everything, he probably would. But, who is judging unrighteous judgment now? You do not know his heart and yet you take it upon yourself to judge him. The man in the Bible put riches above following Christ. Robertson has not done this and so the passage you misquote doesn't apply.

          • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

            judge not lest ye be judged… Who said that bible scholar?

          • DCP the Lesser

            “judge not lest ye be judged… Who said that bible scholar?”

            The same person who said: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

            (John 7:24, KJV)

            Context is everything, my dear. What Jesus addressed in the quote you used is referent to judging others when you do the same things as those you judge. This is why the remainder of the passage says what it does about the same level of judgment you hand out will come back to you and you yourself will be judged accordingly by the same standard of judgment you used to judge others.

            Paul also taught along the similar lines when he taught that we should judge ourselves so that we will not be judged. See 1 Corinthians 11:31. But for people to warn others of their self-destructive behaviors and the results does not necessarily entail handing out judgment against those you warn.

            God has already judged but there is repentance and we never should forget that. After all, final judgment rests with God, not us. But, after that time, the saints indeed will judge the world and also angels, not in the sense of handing out judgments but in the sense of ruling over the world and angels. See 1 Corinthians 6:2-3.

            There is some pretty deep teaching contained in that passage but it is clear that Jesus never taught us that we should never judge at all. We are to judge righteous judgment, not the petty kinds of judgment that often occur in gossip circles.

        • DCP the Lesser

          think4myself is right. This is pretty ignorant on so many levels. He did not want to bother responding and even I debated on doing it, too.

          “OMG do not compare a fairy tale called Christianity with factual provable science like gravity. That's #1.:

          TZap19 was using gravity as an analogy, not comparing the Bible to science. You seem to have missed the point of the analogy. Something else you don't seem to realize is that we haven't the faintest idea what causes gravity. It cannot be seen or felt or smelled or heard, but its effects on us we can see and experience. To deny its existence would be foolish but science only can theorize and hypothesize on what possibly causes gravity. We think it is caused by mass and weak interaction in matter at the subatomic level, etc. But we don't know for certainty. We have good guesses and nothing more. Science does not know the exact details–at all. Do you understand the analogy now?

          “#2 the bible also says if you divorce you should get death as well as adultery. That would kill off like 80% of Christians right now wouldn't it?”

          Absolutely false. No death penalty was prescribed for divorce. In fact, Moses legislated the practice thereof. Jesus says that is because of the hardness of peoples’ hearts. Remember, bill of divorcement? Sound familiar at all, seeing you were a Pastor's daughter?

          Jesus taught that people who divorce on other grounds except immorality commit adultery and cause the other spouse to do the same, but even Jesus did not prescribe a death penalty for divorce on other grounds. In point of fact I married a divorced woman. But, I would not have done so had it not been for the fact that her husband cheated on her and she filed for divorce. I am well within the teaching of Jesus on the matter.

          Jesus and the New Testament writers combined don't teach death penalty for Sabbath-breaking (most Christians observe the Lord's Day rather than Jewish Sabbath because that is what the earliest Christians did and what was enjoined on Christians) or for homosexuality, but it is clear that homosexuality still is sin. See the below post to your related comment for additional information as to why.

          As to the rest, Jesus never said that he hates wealth. He did not like lawyers much. (Who does?) What he did was to teach his followers that we must love God more than wealth. He also taught that those who seek the kingdom of God first can have all those things, including wealth, that they desire, so long as their minds are focused on God and his kingdom first. You are using unrighteous judgment, which you falsely attributed to Robertson.

          But, it is his right to answer questions with Bible quotes if he thinks such quotes help him to answer the questions put to him. You just don't like what the Bible teaches because it reminds you of what you are doing with your life, so you have to make excuses in ignorance as to why you must reject the whole of the Bible to assuage your guilt. I've seen it literally thousands of times. It is hard to miss.

          • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

            gravity can be felt. Have you tried jumping lately? Ever felt God in the only way you can feel something which through your senses? You cannot observe God, you most definitely can observe gravity. So the analogy was a poor one and in my opinion showed no similarities between God and Gravity. There are serious and legitimate doubts concerning the existence of a deity. Ok? There is no one with half a brain that denies gravity. So you cannot compare the two. As far as the divorce you're right it doesn't say death, just that he hates the practice entirely. I believe in Mark he says what God has joined let no man tear asunder? I see how you glossed over adultery. Let me quote the bible for you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Now you see showing similarities between adulterers, those who don't observe the Sabbath, and homosexuals makes sense since they are all mandated as evil in the old testament and mentioned numerous times in the first. So the point being a lot of the things you people do is a hypocrisy of what is easily found in your own damn book and yet you excuse yourselves and condemn those you feel sinned what extra bad? In the eyes of God at least according to his words, every law that is broken must be punished and brought to light and admonished. For some reason religious people are just really hard on gays. I'm married, with a good job and a child. I don't feel guilty about a thing. Christians pick and choose which part of their religion hey are going to follow and religion doesn't work like that. Your God and your Jesus need to have a heart to heart because they contradict each other through their “living word”. God is eternal, he doesn't change. He shouldn't have to right? To change must mean you found erred. God is omnipotent he cannot err, therefore he doesn't change his mind. Or else his entire reason for being makes no sense. He knows all, has seen all. What he just changed his mind? Oh you know what I said keep my Sabbath because it was holy to the Lord for he rested on that day NOT because the Sabbath was only for Israelites because he created existence and wanted no work on that day. Period. No wonder Jews wanted to crucify Jesus, you don't just get to change everything God himself says or you make the entire religion suspect, as you should. I can promise you I feel no guilt. I feel stupid for believing a lie for 20 + years and I feel happy because I understand I'm not being punished, God hasn't abandoned humanity, he was never here in the first place. We are all we have in this universe and as long as Christianity has an influence along with Judaism and Islam, the worlds outlook looks bleak. It is only despite religion that we have made any advances at all. I don't hate God, you can't hate things that aren't real. I pity you. You'll believe something your whole life and die and rot and never know you were wrong. If we are seekers or truth then that is humanities greatest tragedy.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Look up a few posts to see my response to this repeat post.

          • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

            gravity can be felt. Have you tried jumping lately? Ever felt God in the only way you can feel something which through your senses? You cannot observe God, you most definitely can observe gravity. So the analogy was a poor one and in my opinion showed no similarities between God and Gravity. There are serious and legitimate doubts concerning the existence of a deity. Ok? There is no one with half a brain that denies gravity. So you cannot compare the two. As far as the divorce you're right it doesn't say death, just that he hates the practice entirely. I believe in Mark he says what God has joined let no man tear asunder? I see how you glossed over adultery. Let me quote the bible for you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Now you see showing similarities between adulterers, those who don't observe the Sabbath, and homosexuals makes sense since they are all mandated as evil in the old testament and mentioned numerous times in the first. So the point being a lot of the things you people do is a hypocrisy of what is easily found in your own damn book and yet you excuse yourselves and condemn those you feel sinned what extra bad? In the eyes of God at least according to his words, every law that is broken must be punished and brought to light and admonished. For some reason religious people are just really hard on gays. I'm married, with a good job and a child. I don't feel guilty about a thing. Christians pick and choose which part of their religion hey are going to follow and religion doesn't work like that. Your God and your Jesus need to have a heart to heart because they contradict each other through their “living word”. God is eternal, he doesn't change. He shouldn't have to right? To change must mean you found erred. God is omnipotent he cannot err, therefore he doesn't change his mind. Or else his entire reason for being makes no sense. He knows all, has seen all. What he just changed his mind? Oh you know what I said keep my Sabbath because it was holy to the Lord for he rested on that day NOT because the Sabbath was only for Israelites because he created existence and wanted no work on that day. Period. No wonder Jews wanted to crucify Jesus, you don't just get to change everything God himself says or you make the entire religion suspect, as you should. I can promise you I feel no guilt. I feel stupid for believing a lie for 20 + years and I feel happy because I understand I'm not being punished, God hasn't abandoned humanity, he was never here in the first place. We are all we have in this universe and as long as Christianity has an influence along with Judaism and Islam, the worlds outlook looks bleak. It is only despite religion that we have made any advances at all. I don't hate God, you can't hate things that aren't real. I pity you. You'll believe something your whole life and die and rot and never know you were wrong. If we are seekers or truth then that is humanities greatest tragedy.

          • DCP the Lesser

            See my response to this above.

          • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

            gravity can be felt. Have you tried jumping lately? Ever felt God in the only way you can feel something which through your senses? You cannot observe God, you most definitely can observe gravity. So the analogy was a poor one and in my opinion showed no similarities between God and Gravity. There are serious and legitimate doubts concerning the existence of a deity. Ok? There is no one with half a brain that denies gravity. So you cannot compare the two. As far as the divorce you're right it doesn't say death, just that he hates the practice entirely. I believe in Mark he says what God has joined let no man tear asunder? I see how you glossed over adultery. Let me quote the bible for you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Now you see showing similarities between adulterers, those who don't observe the Sabbath, and homosexuals makes sense since they are all mandated as evil in the old testament and mentioned numerous times in the first. So the point being a lot of the things you people do is a hypocrisy of what is easily found in your own damn book and yet you excuse yourselves and condemn those you feel sinned what extra bad? In the eyes of God at least according to his words, every law that is broken must be punished and brought to light and admonished. For some reason religious people are just really hard on gays. I'm married, with a good job and a child. I don't feel guilty about a thing. Christians pick and choose which part of their religion hey are going to follow and religion doesn't work like that. Your God and your Jesus need to have a heart to heart because they contradict each other through their “living word”. God is eternal, he doesn't change. He shouldn't have to right? To change must mean you found erred. God is omnipotent he cannot err, therefore he doesn't change his mind. Or else his entire reason for being makes no sense. He knows all, has seen all. What he just changed his mind? Oh you know what I said keep my Sabbath because it was holy to the Lord for he rested on that day NOT because the Sabbath was only for Israelites because he created existence and wanted no work on that day. Period. No wonder Jews wanted to crucify Jesus, you don't just get to change everything God himself says or you make the entire religion suspect, as you should. I can promise you I feel no guilt. I feel stupid for believing a lie for 20 + years and I feel happy because I understand I'm not being punished, God hasn't abandoned humanity, he was never here in the first place. We are all we have in this universe and as long as Christianity has an influence along with Judaism and Islam, the worlds outlook looks bleak. It is only despite religion that we have made any advances at all. I don't hate God, you can't hate things that aren't real. I pity you. You'll believe something your whole life and die and rot and never know you were wrong. If we are seekers or truth then that is humanities greatest tragedy.

          • DCP the Lesser

            See response above.

          • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

            gravity can be felt. Have you tried jumping lately? Ever felt God in the only way you can feel something which through your senses? You cannot observe God, you most definitely can observe gravity. So the analogy was a poor one and in my opinion showed no similarities between God and Gravity. There are serious and legitimate doubts concerning the existence of a deity. Ok? There is no one with half a brain that denies gravity. So you cannot compare the two. As far as the divorce you're right it doesn't say death, just that he hates the practice entirely. I believe in Mark he says what God has joined let no man tear asunder? I see how you glossed over adultery. Let me quote the bible for you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:22–24
            “If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil. Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man's wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Now you see showing similarities between adulterers, those who don't observe the Sabbath, and homosexuals makes sense since they are all mandated as evil in the old testament and mentioned numerous times in the first. So the point being a lot of the things you people do is a hypocrisy of what is easily found in your own damn book and yet you excuse yourselves and condemn those you feel sinned what extra bad? In the eyes of God at least according to his words, every law that is broken must be punished and brought to light and admonished. For some reason religious people are just really hard on gays. I'm married, with a good job and a child. I don't feel guilty about a thing. Christians pick and choose which part of their religion hey are going to follow and religion doesn't work like that. Your God and your Jesus need to have a heart to heart because they contradict each other through their “living word”. God is eternal, he doesn't change. He shouldn't have to right? To change must mean you found erred. God is omnipotent he cannot err, therefore he doesn't change his mind. Or else his entire reason for being makes no sense. He knows all, has seen all. What he just changed his mind? Oh you know what I said keep my Sabbath because it was holy to the Lord for he rested on that day NOT because the Sabbath was only for Israelites because he created existence and wanted no work on that day. Period. No wonder Jews wanted to crucify Jesus, you don't just get to change everything God himself says or you make the entire religion suspect, as you should. I can promise you I feel no guilt. I feel stupid for believing a lie for 20 + years and I feel happy because I understand I'm not being punished, God hasn't abandoned humanity, he was never here in the first place. We are all we have in this universe and as long as Christianity has an influence along with Judaism and Islam, the worlds outlook looks bleak. It is only despite religion that we have made any advances at all. I don't hate God, you can't hate things that aren't real. I pity you. You'll believe something your whole life and die and rot and never know you were wrong. If we are seekers or truth then that is humanities greatest tragedy.

          • DCP the Lesser

            You multiple posted this so I will respond here and leave the others without long commentary. Your text is all one big paragraph and not broken down into sense paragraphs and somewhat incoherent rambling in places. That is a sign of somebody who is upset while writing. I suppose next to follow is a post containing all caps. You need to calm your nerves and take it in stride before responding.

            You also still missed the point of the analogy. The analogy was a comparison of gravity to truth, not God. And, gravity cannot be felt. You only feel the result of the gravity and the end result of the interaction of gravity on your body but you cannot actually feel gravity waves. Since you do not understand science and scientific principles I don't expect you to comprehend fully, so I will not bother to try to explain further at the moment.

            And, people can observe God should he so choose to reveal himself. In the absence of such election one can discern God in all that one sees in the universe, if one is observant. You cannot see or observe the wind, but you can feel its effects and see what it does as it acts on other objects.

            Yes, God hates divorce. I do not dispute that. But he makes allowance for that in cases of immorality. I also did not gloss over it. I included it but you did not pay attention to what I wrote about why it was that Christians do not kill people guilty of adultery. It has been called the Age of Grace for several reasons. This came after Christ came. And, every law broken will be punished if people do not repent. We just do not carry out capital punishment for sin anymore and Christ did not advocate for that. He offered the chance to repent and change lives which was not always afforded before Christ was revealed to Israel.

            There is a pericope that is not part of the original Gospel of John, but it is a very old story and came to be inserted into that Gospel fairly early but independently has the mark of an authentic pericope containing something Jesus did. You should know this one. Christ was speaking in the temple. An adulteress was brought to Jesus. The people wanted to test him to see what he would do to her for getting caught in adultery. His answer? Stone her. But, the first one to throw a stone had to be without sin himself. No one remained to throw that first stone. Then Jesus asked where her accusers had gone. He then told her that he also did not condemn her (to death) and to go and sin no more. That is the example Christians follow. That is the teaching we follow.

            It is not a matter of picking and choosing but in listening to and believing what Christ and his chosen apostles taught and wrote. If we adhered completely to the old Law we would be no more than another sect of Judaism. Christianity is about following Jesus and his teaching, and the teachings of his apostles.

            Revelation is progressive. Newer revelation supersedes the older. Again, this is something so simple that a Pastor's daughter who would have paid attention would have known and understood.

            Now, you again do not understand the reason why the Law was given. It is not matter of contradicting God by Jesus as atheists and those of like mindset suppose. It is a matter of necessity. The first teaching that was given to Israel was the Gospel of Jesus Christ but they rejected it. They also rebelled over and over again as he was freeing them from bondage and giving them a new land where they had originally dwelt. So, as a result, God gave Israel a harsher law and a detailed law of ordinances, dietary restrictions and strict moral codes with accompanying death penalties to teach them strict obedience and prepare and tutor them for the Gospel at a future time. All this can be seen from reading Galatians and Hebrews in the New Testament.

            God is eternal but mankind is changeable and God sometimes does change his mind if something is in agreement with his greater purposes in benefiting his children. For, “we are the offspring of God” (Acts 17:28-29), destined to become joint heirs with Christ.

            You should not have used the word “period” about the Sabbath because you are also mistaken that God's stopping creative activity on the seventh day was the only reason for the Sabbath. It was a type and shadow of things to come, as we learn from the New Testament, but even Moses gave yet another reason why it was given to the Jews. Let's see if you can look that up and find it before I comment upon it. I can assure you that it had nothing to do with creation. The seventh day Sabbath also was not the only one. Why, I'll bet you weren't even aware that there were other days of the week that were Sabbaths in even the Old Testament! It is true. Some Sabbaths were on the first day of the week and otherwise. Read your Bible and see for yourself rather than relying on atheistic excuses for unbelief.

            And, you are correct that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus for changing certain aspects of the law, but that is because they failed to understand that he was the embodiment of the God of Israel himself. They tried to stone him for identifying himself as such as well. But, does not the God of Israel have the right to create laws and modify them as he wills for the greater benefit of his people? But, they were angry that he would not just take adulteresses out and have them killed. They were angry that knew the Law inside and out and could give reasons for why some of the no longer applied. But, he also enjoined on his disciples living of the tenets of the Law until his resurrection, when he had fulfilled all things in the Law by his own sacrifice.

            You claim you don't feel guilty for anything but your response and need to repeat that more than once that you don't tells a different story. But a lot of that is anger issues because you came to reject something you never really understood. In any case, I am glad that things are going well for your family.

            I also seem to know something of which you are unaware. You claim that we only made progress and advances in spite of religion. That actually is not entirely true. Some of the greatest minds and scientists in the world were adherents of Abrahamic religions. Islam gave us algebra. Adherents of Judaism and Christianity gave us many of the sciences we enjoy the results of today. Chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy and other sciences had their beginnings among adherents of the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That is a hard cheese to swallow but there it is, as some of my British friends would say. It is, particularly for mistaken atheists and those of like mindset who don't know any better.

            Don't pity me. Unlike you, I know there is a God and I cannot reject it. I know he lives, and many things in my life and things I have learned and seen have shown me that. I'd tell you much more about what I know and how I know it but I try not to throw pearls before swine.

            I pity most those who think this life is all there is. I once was in like state as yourself. I once rejected the existence of God but I have experienced him and now know better. Before I met God I was so staunch an atheist and so convincing that I deconverted my Southern Baptist father and a number of others from religion to atheism. I have been trying all I can do to bring these people back. Some have come back but not all.

            But, one thing I also know is that if everyone in the world actually studied, understood, and lived the moral tenets of their religions, the world would be a far better place than it now is. Atheists, on the other hand, gave us things like Communist China and the former Soviet Union. A non-believing Christian with atheist tendencies, who played Christian to gain popularity, created NAZI Germany. Also hard cheese to swallow for atheists and those of like mindset but true nonetheless.

    • Billy Wages

      Name one instance where anyone said that ‘Happy Holidays’ is offensive,

      • metazip

        Every time I hear it, I'm offended…

    • Ashley Lawson

      Hey, fuck all those morons too who say we cannot say “Merry Christmas!” To everybody: Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!

    • think4myself

      Why is it offensive to compare homosexuality with bestiality? What is so wrong about that? Don't those people (who are attracted to animals) also have rights and feelings? Can you imagine how your hateful remarks make those people feel!

  • Jimmy

    The GOP like to prattle on about not wasting taxpayer money, which we know is complete BS, and this is a prime example of that. What a complete waste of time and money. If you support Robertson, great, but do so on your own dime.

    • Ashley Lawson

      This particular LGBT MORON wants governmental protection and privileges for the LGBTs, but has objections to the same government doing anything different. LOL!

      • Try thinking sometimes.

        hey, cover up, your in public!

        • Ashley Lawson

          That is the beauty of being in the US! The fucking LGBT morons can say and do what they want. The fucking Muslim lunatics can blow up buildings. And yet, you have a problem with an artistic response to some fat ugly LGBT bitch calling me a hag?

        • Ashley Lawson

          And BTW, it's only in the US that so many criminals (the homos as they are indulging in illegal and abominable acts) are roaming free. And they take pride (called gay pride) in declaring to the world that they have “come out of the closet.” They should have stayed buried in their filthy closets.

      • beowulf32

        They already have protected status so do muslims, blacks, queers, Mexicans. All but white people.

        • Heather

          So true beo!! Thanks for telling the truth..

    • Billy Wages

      How did the GOP waste money on this issue? They were not involved,
      you lying lib punk.

      • Jimmy

        Really, name calling? How mature. The Alabama legislature is controlled by Republicans and Fielding is a Republicann state senator. So, yes, GOP wasting money. There are far more important issues for elected officials to be concerned about in Alabama like the thousands of people who can't find work or the fact that nearly one-third of their children live in poverty. So, again, yes, this is waiting time, money and effort that can be put to a better use.

  • dt

    Is about FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! Protect it!

    • sunflowergirl67

      Was he arrested, thrown in jail, or were there any laws enacted by Congress prohibiting him from saying what he did?

      No?

      Then it's not about freedom of speech. Actually read the Bill of Rights if you are going to reference it, please.

      • Billy Wages

        Right, you are. Even if he had a Constitutional right to say what he
        said, there is nothing to stop his employer from terminating their
        relationship. Just like having a friend who embarrasses you and you
        terminate your friendship. His rights were not violated.
        Jesse Jackass wanted to use the law as a means of forcing him to
        pony up some money but everybody did what they were supposed
        to do. They just simply ignored Jesse and his boys. Good job!!

        • Lulu Morin

          Then why is it against the law to terminate a gay person because they are offensive?

          • sunflowergirl67

            Because of the same reason why it is against the law to fire someone simply because of their ethnicity, gender, or RELIGION.

            Do you think it would be OK for an employer to say to their Christian employee “Ugh, your religion is offensive to me. You're fired!” Absolutely not.

          • Joe Petrosky Jr.

            I think that is what A&E did.

          • sunflowergirl67

            You think they fired him for being a Christian? What a stupid thing to say

            Then why create the show to begin with? Why show them praying and talking about religion on the show? Do you really think that they'd go three seasons of that and say to ONE guy on the show “Well, you're fired because you're a Christian.” Use your brain before you respond.

        • JMS

          Exactly. Freedom of speech does have both limitations and most importantly consequences. While he broke no laws and has the right to convey his point of view, how he is treated by others including his employer is also within their rights.

          • deversal

            The majority of you perverts would no know a RIGHT, if it hit you in the head. We are talking about Unalienable Rights, not just ,what ever you decide,you on the left are so ignorant!

      • DCP the Lesser

        While it might not be the case now, it easily could take that turn the way things are going. It already now is a criminal offense for a business owner to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple in at least two states now. It used to be, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Not anymore, folks. And it only is going downhill from here unless the majority speaks up and does something other than sitting back and watching it happen.

        • kc56

          DCP the lesser I would really like to here your covrsion story to being a believer you sound very educated on Biblical matters

          • DCP the Lesser

            It is extremely long and some of the details very boring to some. I have been giving some thought to putting it into book form. I have not decided on that for the moment, though. I have tried to do all I could to read and understand the Bible, however, as I have for many religious texts of the various world religions.

            Whenever possible I have utilized what I have learned concerning the importance of not relying on English translations. Sometimes even those can be misleading because there are not exact equivalents in English to terms and phrases of other languages in a number of places. All we can do is to approximate in a number of instances. Some terms and words are left untranslated entirely because they cannot be translated word-on-word.

            In some cases we have to reconstruct the texts because the various copies have been altered. The further we can go back the better, and the Dead Sea Scrolls have enabled us to do just that, as have the ancient trash heaps of Egypt.

            But, these are among the many things and experiences in life that ultimately led me to be where I am today.

        • sunflowergirl67

          Actually, they never really had the right to refuse service to anyone. With people being belligerent and destructive, yes, they can refuse service. But if they reserve the right to refuse anyone, then if that extends to anyone, is it right for a business to be “whites only”? But a business cannot refuse service to someone based on their status, whether it be gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability because it's called “discrimination.”

          • DCP the Lesser

            It seems you are too young to remember that being able to refuse service to anyone once was a fundamental business right.

            But, I agree with you regarding any business that would do such a thing based upon race, religion and disability (and for certain kinds of businesses such as public businesses, sexual orientation).

            There must be a careful balance in the rights of businesses and patrons. There are those in business for themselves who have religious concerns when it comes to certain practices or in the fact that they do not believe in doing things that would lend validity to something they see as evil.

            Truthfully, all they had to is go down the street and use another cake vendor. This was better for the show of strength in the public eye, however, so that is the way they went and even pushed legislation to make things worse as punishment for the person who refused them on religious grounds. It is little different from gays suing Bible publishers to force them to remove words from their Bibles simply for translating words correctly in the Bibles they publish.

            Seriously, if you don't like what one Bible says go find another. If you don't like that a private business owner doesn't want to bake you a cake, go elsewhere and let them suck up the loss of your business.

          • Rick

            Exactly! The cake maker case should have never hit the courts! A waste of time and taxpayer money. You're supposed to simply take your business elsewhere and write a bad review of the shop! That would've been much more effective. Now, when the cake maker appeals, and wins, there will be new laws to protect the businesses ever further! Dumb move on the gays! Same thing GLAAD die, they jumped the gun. The gays want to win every little battle. But the majority will not have it!

          • DCP the Lesser

            I agree that this was a total waste of taxpayer moneys. An easier solution I saw, that I recently read while searching for something else, actually made me laugh. The cake maker could have baked a horrible cake, charged a small fortune for it, and word of mouth would have deflected anyone else from the group from making use of the private service again. The most they could have gotten from that scenario was a refund. LOL!

          • Joe Petrosky Jr.

            I would have made the cake and put bible verses all over it. They could take it or leave it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Another excellent idea. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 would have been a good one. If he designs all his cakes that way, no one can claim discrimination. :-)

          • DCP the Lesser

            What the courts should use as a guide to how to rule on matters such as this is in the following:

            1. Whether the business is a public business or a private business.

            2. Whether the business in question is the only one in town.
            3. Whether not performing the service can result in loss of life and/or well-being, or can cause other tangible harm to a potential patron by not serving the potential patron.

            If I manage to think of more I will add to the list. But I do agree that GLAAD jumped the gun. It is what they do. But, if they get enough activist judges leaning their way they can get their way more easily, including by overturning legislation that was passed by majority and previously determined constitutional at the time it was passed into law, as well as with the assistance of Federal Law Enforcement under Eric Holder as they have.

          • Rick

            It's not discrimination if its in the bible.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Yes it is absolutely discrimination. Our laws are not centered on what the Bible says. It doesn't matter what the Bible says, you own a business, you have to serve people. You can't pick and choose who to serve and say that you refuse service based on the BS excuse of “religious beliefs.”

            Which is hilarious, because refusing people service based on their status (or casting them out of society based on their status) goes AGAINST what Jesus taught.

          • DCP the Lesser

            “Which is hilarious, because refusing people service based on their status (or casting them out of society based on their status) goes AGAINST what Jesus taught.”

            Actually, Jesus advocated kicking people who do evil out of the Church and Christian society and thinking of them like they did tax collectors if they refused to repent and refused listen to the leaders and others of the Church. This practice was continued by his apostles and an example is discussed in the Pauline epistles. However, I am unaware of anything from Jesus or apostles as to instructing Christians to serve unconditionally all patrons who come into their shops. If you are aware of something like that please do post it.

        • livefreeordie

          It is not it happens all the time, and it was never a criminal offense. There may be county, local or even some state laws where it is illegal to discriminate based on all kinds of reasons including homosexuality. Personally I would not do business with any company that I knew discriminated against gay people in that manner. I don't think you need to agree with another persons lifestyle or opinion in order to provide a service to them. Personally I don't care for right wing rednecks but if I could make money off their tired ashes, I would.

          • DCP the Lesser

            If it is not a criminal offense why is the business owner now facing the very real prospect of jail time?

            Individual business owners ought to have the right to not perform services for those who practice things they disagree with. Public corporations, on the other hand, should not have that right, for they are providing public services that should be available for the entire public.

            That is where the line should be drawn. There must be a balance between personal rights and business rights, and where the line is drawn should be determined by the nature of the business and the services provided.

            But, the situation is only going to get worse the way things are going. It is only a matter of time before more rights are eroded away under the guise of all-inclusiveness and on the touted anachronisms of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. All of this has happened before and it will happen again.

            If you want to see a chilling picture of a future where American society is slowly going, read the Hunger Games Trilogy. If you are a grammarian the text will grate at your nerves while you read (how it got past several editors I'll never know) but the storyline is decent.

        • Rick

          That cake maker will win on appeal. What that judge ruled is unconstitutional. The business owner does have a right to refuse service based on his religious beliefs.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I am watching this very closely. We'll see. With all the activist judges placed and sitting in the highest courts, I can see it going south for the business owner. And, I can see further rights eroding not many years afterward. It is merely a matter of time.

          • sunflowergirl67

            But he doesn't have a right to discriminate people based on their status.

      • Ashley Lawson

        Very “sunflowery” darling!

      • SGTMOORE

        Actually! sunflowergirl67: it is about freedom of speech, his company I/E INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY was under attack of BOYCOTT!, he was being slandered in the public and corporate opinion, simply because he said he worked in fields side by side with blacks, Tim Molloy the reporter from yahoo, took it upon himself to TWIST the words.
        and attacked him for having christian beliefs and having DARED to say ALL when talking about sinners, and further having included gays and terrorists with the rest of the human race when he said we all needed more faith (get some Jesus in yo life son!) i personaly do not extend human rights to terrorists, i think them rabid animals, that need killing, of course Tim Malloy would say that i thinkk gays need to be killed among terrorists, EVEN THO i never said so, you get it now? it is about a violation to your private intellectual property, slander, and defamation of charecter, MR Malloy did just that, took pieces of what whas the actual transcript from the entrevue and changed the meaning from I DONT HAVE PROBLEMS WITH BLACKS IN FACT I WORKED WITH MANY to say in his own twisted sensationalist way to slander the opinion to mean pro slavery and separation of race)
        also when the man pluralized to mean WE ALL HUMANS, he again LIED about the actual text and changed it in his opinion to make people think that Mr Robertson placed gays, terrorists and bestiality deviants in the same category, when in fact he said we are all human: straight, black, gay, hippie, asian, latinos, we are all humans and sinners!,
        You get it now? a reporter called TIM MALLOY is guilty of defamation of character and criminal destruction of intellectual property, both offenses to be SUED for in court! for wich he can be liable in the millions of dollars given the net worth of the Duck Dynasty Corp.

        • sunflowergirl67

          Goodness lord you are so stupid.

          Do me a favor and actually *read* the Bill of Rights. And please, your name is offensive to people who *actually* served in the military.

          • Bob5250

            If you are so learned about the Bill of Rights, why don't you quote the one you are talking about???? There are only 10; and they are only one or two sentences each. Oh, I understand. You don't know what they are either. That's cool.

            And how do you figure SGT. MOORE is offensive? There are probably several SGT. MOORE's in the services. You are the one being offensive to all of them.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Uh, the 1st Amendment??? Anyone who says that this is a free speech issue is an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about the 1st amendment free speech clause.

        • Hippy Mike

          Sgt Moore I applaud you four seeming to be the only person in the world right now who knows how to read decifer the English language.put a common though together of Igor from which even the simplest of education's of people that have the brains and knowledge to put on a pair of pants.you sure took the initiative and read deciferd what was said and I applaud tiki for coming to the sand conclusion and heart felt duty.also the courage to repeat forbatem.speaking the truth that none no one! Wanted to see the painfull truth .that her simply quoted the bible and personal repeat personal experiences and that's not showing anyone that's answering a question from personal prideful upbringin.a simple statement of fact from his memory and experience for that Jessie Jackson wants him Rio start to pay some sort of reperation of some sort because he is now a rich white guy that somehow used his gaming knowledge to kelp the blah blah blah.Mr.Jackson her a life and a real job stop trying to take from the haces to give to the have nots.you mange.Jackson have said plenty of things over your past I feel persicuted as a white individual and I Ann mentally influenced because of your demanding of apologies from a race that you obviously despise and feel that it's somehow our responsibility to pay feed clothe you so you could preach on your soapbox in thousands dollar suits we see where the people are.Sgt Moore has simply read and takin the actual words for how they were said and what they ment thank you for being one of the few who see our are rather literate.thank you thank you.

          • HippyMike

            I rock!

        • Tuenesha Nicole Cartwright

          like you have a choice of whom you work beside. “I'm not racist I worked beside black people” if the only time you've been around. Blacks is when you were forced to work beside them, you are racist as hell. The “silent majority” what a bunch of bigoted whites who like guns and have a superiority. Complex?

    • vic

      @dt: don't know if your inbred home school taught you this: but A&E is a private corporation and could fire whomever it pleases whenever it pleases…”freedom of speech” only pertains to government censuring individuals….the right of business to fire “without cause” is a “pro-business” tenet advocated by free market republicans…

      • Markus

        So is the right for a bunch of viewers to get pissed off and use pressure to reverse that decision.

        • MARINE 1962

          YOUR SO RIGHT MARKUS BEST BLOG OF THE DAY I THINK AND I THE RIGHT TO SAY THIS >

      • jonny

        Wow Vic. What a hateful comment about Home Schooling. Actually most home schoolers can recite the amendments to the constitution and know more about our country's history than the average person. Maybe you are showing a little jealousy because you had to sit in boring government school?

      • GreaterVictor

        Would it be the right of the business to fire him if he were black because they didn't like it? Would it be their right to fire him if he came out and they were opposed? Would it be their “right” to fire him because he was born in a nation they didn't like?

        The answer to all of these is a resounding no… under the same Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects individuals from being fired for expressing their religious beliefs. They actually did NOT have a right to fire him under the civil rights act of 1964. You need to learn your employment law there before sounding stupid. Even in “right to work” states, it doesn't obviate civil rights statues, of which religious belief is a foundation.

        • Steve

          You do have a right to fire someone for being gay in 32 states. Because they are not included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's why the Democrats are trying to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)— But the republicans are against it. However you are correct in that the other “protected classes” you mentioned cannot be fired for being who they are.
          But a business DOES have a right to fire ANYONE for their actions or their words if they are not acceptable to their position as an employee for that business. So since he said something to offend many people (consumers) they have every right to fire him.
          So when you speak before you think such as you and the hillbilly did, you do indeed come off sounding stupid.

  • Human being

    Just googled A&E to see which shows of theirs I watch–so I wouldn't watch (DVR) them again. Didn't see/find one. Guess they have found their audience which I'm not part of. Woo hoo! I will research who advertises on the Robertson show/A&E and let my voice and dollars speak for themselves. Be sure of that.

    • Ashley Lawson

      Sure criminal. You indulge in illegal and abominable acts and are therefore a criminal. Go ahead and toot your horn as much as you can and want. Who cares?

      • Row D

        Ashley, I think I love you. For your mind and opinion of coarse. I would be OK with your breasts too.

        • Ashley Lawson

          Hey! You have the freedom to voice your thoughts. Beware though! The LGBT morons would want you to put a leash on anything that is not pro-sadistic. not pro-masochistic, or not pro-aboministic (please excuse the use of artistic liberty).

    • Billy Wages

      The can probably stumble along without your $3.27.

  • PD

    We really need another silly” Boo-Boo with dirty looking whiskers show”. Who is this guy anyway, and why should his remarks about anything be of any importance to the American public??.

    • Ashley Lawson

      It was obvious that it was important to the LGBT arseholes who wanted his head rolled! Too sad for them that it backfired. Hallelujah heterosexuality and damn homosexuality. These arseholes want to hide under the acronym LGBT.

    • beowulf32

      Then why stop here and involve your self into it the conversation, and you don't have to turn it on unless Obama gives you an order to do so. Then you can put your little prayer rug down and worship your master while doing what he told you to.

    • Billy Wages

      It shouldn't be of any importance and it would not have been if the libs
      hadn't attacked him.

  • Ashley Lawson

    Check you the “Fuck LGBTs” page on Facebook. Like it.

  • DCP the Lesser

    Robertson holds his view lumping homosexuals with drunkards, bestiality, etc., because his Bible does. He quoted it twice. And, that is what got people up in arms. People tend to ignore a lot of what the Bible states, if they have read it at all.

    It isn't a matter of mere translation/interpretation, either. With the exception of his last portion of the sentence of the Bible quote (“Don't do it; it's not right.” or something like that), the rest was dead-on what the Greek text underlying the translation of 1 Corinthians he quoted actually says. The passage does mention both passive and active partners in a male homosexual relationship.

    The Greek word is masculine and plural (meaning it references males) and literally translates as “male-bedders.” The first part of the Greek compound word is the word for “male.” The second means “bed” in the sense of the conjugal bed, and by metonymy refers to the sexual act that normally occurs in the marriage bed. In fact, the Greek word as the second part of the compound word is where derives our modern word “coitus.” That by definition is the very act of homosexual men so the translation “homosexual” is correct.

    That same passage in the Bible puts homosexual activities in the same list as drunkards and so forth. What Robertson didn't quote is the part of the passage that in no unmistakable terms also states that those who do such things will not enter into the kingdom of God. Try to deal with it however you wish, or even go into denial over it, but the Bible does list homosexuality as one of a number of sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God in the New Testament.

    Since Robertson claims to be a Bible believer, and a believer in the God-breathed quality of the text of all scripture, it would be pretty foolish of him not to hold such a view, and he knows it. Those who pretend to believe the Bible as well as those who disbelieve the whole of it are the ones who are hot under the collar for no real reason except that they feel threatened by the quote every time they hear it. This is why people are trying to eliminate the passage, silence those who quote it, and why lawsuits have been filed by gay men to try to get the translation “homosexual” removed from Bible translations that contain the word.

    • sunflowergirl67

      What if Paul's letter to the Corinthians was not included in the Bible?

      • Try thinking sometimes.

        homosexuality is still defined as Sin, with out Corinthians.

        God said that he watches over his word, and makes sure it does not return to him void.

        God also warns at the end about adding/subtracting from the word.

        Further, a God that would go to the degree of the Death on the Cross, isn't going to just let men manipulate and alter his word. Of course their are many interpretations, but God is powerful enough to make sure the basic book is what he wants.

        • sunflowergirl67

          “homosexuality is still defined as Sin”

          Where?

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            try looking it up

          • sunflowergirl67

            Which tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            no, i just don't feel like throwing pearls to swine. sorry, but you're choosing which parts of the bible you want, i can't see me making any point that you don't just dismiss as a part of the bible you don't believe, not much point of talking about the bible to one such as you.

          • sunflowergirl67

            You won't cite your sources. Therefore, you fail.

            Do you eat shellfish? Do you touch women when they are on their period? Do you have a beard? Do you eat bacon and sausage? Do you wear clothing of mixed fibers?

            If you do those things, considered a sin in the Bible, then you too are “picking and choosing” what to believe in the Bible.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            much of those customs have changed, with the new covenant.

            Peter was told to rise and eat, was not told to go preform fellatio.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            here's something that you can possibly enlighten me on.

            Samson was a whore-monger and womanizer,
            Abraham lied allot
            Judah slept with his daughter-in-law, because he thought she was a prostitute.
            Judah and his brothers conspired against their own brother, and sold him into slavery,
            Simeon, and Levi (the patriarch if the preisthood,) slaughtered an entire city, because their ruler raped their sister.
            Moses murdered an Egyptian
            David got a married woman pregnant, then had her husband killed to cover it up
            Solomon scarified to other gods with his wives…

            of all the flawed heroes in the bible, was their one gay hero? please help, because i can't think of a single one.

          • DCP the Lesser

            “Abraham lied allot”

            Actually, Abraham didn't actually lie. His wife was his half-sister (see Genesis 20:12). Hebrew did not have a word for “half-sister” in those days.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            Read verse 9, doesn't really sound like the dude one the spot would agree, its more like he was going along with it because he was afraid of God.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Verse 9 changes nothing. Abraham stated clearly that Sarah was his sister in verse 12. He just left out saying anything about being married to his sister.

            Interestingly enough, one text among the Dead Sea Scrolls has Abraham leaving out the detail of her being his wife after seeing a vision from God regarding Sarah and warning him about the situation that would occur had he admitted she was his wife at the time. He would have been killed and his wife taken from him. He had good reason to be afraid. But, early tradition has him doing that after being warned by God concerning his wife. The Bible is silent on the matter.

            But, then, there are texts missing from the Bible so we don't have the full story in all aspects. I wish we did have all of it.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            i don't know man, its always seemed to me like it was deceitful, especially with the spirit of God telling the dude that he did nothing wrong out good conscience

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            but it doesn't really matter, as God would have forgiven him, and blessed him, long before now. Which is actually my point, the power of God, and his promises depend on him. We play a part, yes, but it is about God, and his glory, that often shines brightest in flawed vessels.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I do agree with this.

          • DCP the Lesser

            But if she really was his half-sister, how was he lying about that? If there is any deceit, it is in leaving out the detail that he married his half-sister. But, if the old traditions are true that God warned him that he should say nothing more than that she was his sister, I am not sure we could even call it that.

            That's why I wish we had all the books that were written. The Dead Sea Scrolls pretty much show that portions of the Bible have been modified in various ways and the Bible itself shows us that a lot of books that the writers of the Bible knew and even quoted are now lost.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            I once told something like that to a guy, and what he said to me rocked me on the spot, and still to this day.

            He said to me, “So your calling God a liar? He says he watches over and protects his word, and makes sure it does not return to him Void.”

            Meaning, the cannon that he's given us, is what he wants us to have.

          • DCP the Lesser

            The thing is, it is the truth that the Bible once had differing texts. And, if God really protected his word like people say he said he did, why the warnings in Revelation and Deuteronomy?

            And, why did Jeremiah flatly accuse the scribes in his day of changing the Law and making it into a lie? And, how did we end up with so many variant readings in multiple passages? the Canon we have been given is what man has given us.

            God nowhere spells out the names and limits the number of books that should have been there.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            except what else do i have?

            my experiences with God, is that he'll beat me up, until i do what he wants, like Jona. I've spent many years in the belly of a big alcohol bottle. I have no choice but to obey God. thankfully I've learned the truth about “my burden is light,” Its allot easier to walk a holy life, telling the truth, and taking responsibility, than to spend your time lying and getting out of trouble.

            that is unless you choose a life of sin, then its difficult to tell the truth, even to yourself.

            but what “truth” i can only believe what God tells me. If it is true that he is father, Shepard, husband, brother, and friend, and if it is true that he is all powerful, then i can be content that he will gather his sheep, Eze, 34: 15,16

            and thanks for the discussion

          • DCP the Lesser

            I'm not sure I follow you here. Please clarify. I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say (but have an idea) but will try to clarify my position on the matter.

            Even the fact that modifications have been made should not dissuade one from following what we do have. We have a lot of materials from which to reconstruct the older readings. We are not at perfect yet but much of what we have is what was available to the ancient Christians. I just wish we had the rest.

            I would love to read the letter Paul sent to the Laodiceans. It was important enough for Paul to urge the Colossians to read it as the Laodiceans were to read the one sent to Colossia. I would love to read all the letters to the Corinthians, not just the two we have left.

            Quite a few books available to the authors of several Old Testament books, and even quoted and/or referenced by these authors, would be interesting reading as well, because they also contained the words of God therein. They had more in their times than we now have, and it is the fault of humankind.

            As to the passage from the above post, when it speaks of God's words not returning to him void, it has nothing to do with the integrity of the text. No matter what he says, and no matter what we have done to his written words, his words that go forth will never return to him void. What he sets out to accomplish he will accomplish, apart from what we attempt to do. But it is not referring to written texts.

            We also have to watch out for our misunderstanding of jots and tittles (yods [smallest Hebrew letter in square script, which itself is not originally shaped as it now is and was the same size as the other letters originally] and tiddels [small parts of letters that help show the difference between certain letters, such as the little "foot" that sticks out from the bottom right of the letter beth]) and what those represented. By comparisons of the manuscripts, as well as the history of the Hebrew language, we know that many yods and tiddels have been added, removed, and modified.

            For instance, vowel letters were not used in Hebrew at the time Moses lived. Yods are among the vowel letters that were added to the texts as the language evolved. The kind of script itself also was modified. Hebrew Bibles use Aramaic Square Script to write Hebrew. Originally, Bible manuscripts were written in what we now call Paleo-Hebrew.

            But, by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, Hebrew Bible manuscripts were being written in Square Script. Had he made his argument centuries before, it would have made zero sense to his hearers. And, this also has reference to the words of God from his own mouth and not specifically written text. It also applied to observance of the Law at the time because it had not yet been fulfilled in him and all would be fulfilled in him without a single thing failing.

            His own remarks regarding heaven and earth not passing away but his words never passing away also cannot be pertaining strictly to our current written texts or words of Jesus because we know many words of Jesus have been lost. Many things he said and did never were written. The Bible tells us so. But, we also have to remember that man was not alone recording his words and deeds. They are written in heaven and his words accordingly never will pass away, no matter what we have done with parts of them, whether written by man or not.

            What else do you have? You yourself stated it. You have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or should have it. It is the Spirit who guides into all truth.

            And, thank you also for the discussion.

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            and about the warnings, i always figured that to be more about false doctrine. given the subject matter, things like

            “All God really cares about is a loving relationship,” that is if you ignore allot of what God said.

            “You who are with out sin, throw the first stone,” I'm not throwing stones, i'm supporting what God said,

            “Do not Judge…” probably the most misused verse i can think of, but the condensed response, My sins don't justify your sins, and visa versa, if its a sin, then it is a sin. I didn't die for your sins, Jesus did, he is the model and the example to follow, not this imperfect creation typing.

          • DCP the Lesser

            “and about the warnings, i always figured that to be more about false doctrine. given the subject matter…”

            This is only in part true. Another thing that happened in ancient times is that people also tried to modify written texts to change their meaning. Jeremiah spoke out against what the scribes in his day had done with the Law. We actually have examples of that sort of thing in even the writings of certain early Christian writers, such as Ignatius (who has no less than three differing rescensions of his extant writings). Christian scribes inserted a phrase into the writings of Josephus to add more favorable details about Christ than were already there.

            We even know of examples where the New Testament texts had passages clarified by later scribes to say more explicitly what originally only was implied. I have seen with my own eyes a place in a Greek manuscript (the oldest nearly complete Greek Bible, Codex Sinaiticus) where a Greek word was changed from meaning “he who” into an abbreviation for “God” by adding a couple small lines (that Greek manuscript still has where it was changed by one of the scribes, and you actually can see the different inks used by the differing scribes centuries apart). The oldest texts all read “he who” in that same passage.

            Another instance is where Irenaeus and Justin Martyr each accused the Jews of removing passages from their synagogue copies that spoke more directly about Christ, one of which was a direct reference to his crucifixion and another of which spoke of the symbolism of the Passover in reference to Christ. Most scholars today tend to discount these claims of Justin and Irenaeus, though.

            But such warnings actually were warnings both against deviation from following commandments in the Law, and also against modifying the content of the Book of Revelation itself.

            And, I completely agree concerning Christ being the model to follow. We are promised that if we do that faithfully in overcoming the world we will share his glory, become like him, and sit with him on his throne. (See John 17:22; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; 1 John 3:2-3; Revelation 3:21, for example). These are among the greatest promises ever made to man, if they would follow him and make him their example. If everyone tried to pattern their lives after Christ the world would be a much better place even now, and even better if they would allow themselves to become changed from within by the Holy Spirit as they are being transformed into the same image as Christ.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Don't forget how Lot offered an angry mob the opportunity to rape his daughters so they wouldn't rape his guests, who were strangers, and how then his daughters went to get him drunk and rape HIM and then got pregnant.

            The Bible is just full of wonderful things!

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            my point SF67, is 2 part

            1, the promises of God, depend on his faithfulness, he forgives, and heals. Samson is an excellent example, he ended up paying for his lack of self-control, and in the end died a Hero.

            2. well, not a point, a question, is their a gay hero in the bible?

            and they weren't exactly strangers, they were angels. so he offered his mortal daughters, rather than hand a couple of Angels to rape mob.

          • Billy Wages

            Life is life. The Bible tells us that there is ‘nothing new under
            the sun'. Would you rather have a fairy tale story with a happy
            ending?
            The Bible is truthful and it doesn't whitewash the sins of the
            people. It tries to make us understand that we are ‘All sinners
            and fall short of the Glory of God'. Jesus wanted us to know
            that we can all be forgiven if we turn to Him.
            There is only one ‘unforgivable sin'. Homosexuality is not it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Yes, the Bible is full of a great many things, warts and all. That is all the more reason why people who believe in it are unwilling to see it as a fairy tale. It tells it like it is, no matter how ugly.

            The point of the text you used for your example, however, you seem to be missing. Homosexuality was seen as so awful and so heinous that it would have been better to turn his own daughters out to the men than to have them sodomize his male guests. That is how the author of Genesis saw the situation.

            But also consider that Lot likely only offered them because he didn't think the men of the city would take him up on it because of their proclivity for men. As to Lot's daughters, well, that is Lot's daughters. The Bible later spoke out against incest as sin, too. Nice try, though.

          • sunflowergirl67

            My point is, why on earth would I want to follow the word of some book if it's filled with such hatred, spite, rape, and murder? No thanks. You Christians can have it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            It is filled with such things to show readers a contrast between the way things are and the way things should be. It contains a progression from lawlessness to law, to being and doing more and reaching the highest potential. This is lost on many Christians, however, which is most unfortunate.

            Usually, though, it is those who would rather return to a lawless state who ignore it the most. Nowhere are people commanded to hate, rape, and murder in the New Testament. The book would be worthless as a religious text if it did such things. But, it doesn't, which is why it is so valuable.

            The moral teachings of the book, particularly in the New Testament, would lead to world peace if the tenets of the book were equally observed and believed by the masses, Christian or not. It is similar for many religious texts but the New Testament does more to address peace and general getting along with your neighbors, in my opinion, than most of the ancient texts that have been with us for thousands of years.

            To focus on the bad and ignore the good is like losing sight of the forest for the trees. You are welcome to that approach and are welcome to believe or disbelieve the Bible all you want. It's America. Its a free country, for now. But, you really should not waste your time castigating those who wish to believe it for all it says in the New Testament, and live it in belief of every word.

          • sunflowergirl67

            You can still be a good, moral person and not believe in the Bible. Sure, it has some good lessons, but to say that people who want to return to a lawless state are those who ignore the Bible the most is well…. simply untrue.

            The funny thing is, Christians suck at following the Bible. For people who love to preach it so much, and castigate people who *don't* believe in it, they sure do have a hard time following it.

            It's funny you say that it's a free country, for now, when the religious right has been trying so hard to take *away* freedoms and rights based on what their religion tells them (which goes in direct opposition of the first amendment regarding religion) in conservative states. I mean, look at how they handled this whole debacle: They were in no way going to let a company choose who they decide to portray on a TV show they created. Instead, they boycott. They criticize. They create a fervor that his “rights” were taken away (they weren't). Politicians got involved. And now this crap in Alabama? You Christians have way more power you can wield than you like to admit, because you have stupid people following you. And those Republicans know it and they take every advantage of it.

          • DCP the Lesser

            Pot…Meet Kettle.

            Seriously, though, it is true that some suck at following the Bible. But that is the case with all people and in all religions, and even those who have no religion. That, in fact, is where the problem lies. It is not Christian religion that has caused atrocities of the past but failure on the part of people actually to live their religion.

            It does not mean that the religion itself is bad, just that people sometimes don't live up to what they believe. Atheists and those of similar mindset tend to lump everyone together and blame all religion for the world's ills, simply because they don't understand. Interesting thing in that vein (rampant lack of understanding), though, is that there is mounting scientific evidence that atheists literally are missing parts of their brains. :-)

            Read some medical journals if you don't believe it.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Religion in and of itself is bad. People don't know how to follow it. I used to be religious. Not anymore. Also doesn't mean I'm an atheist. I just choose not to follow some ancient book that isn't culturally relevant anymore.

            The main issue lies with religious people telling non-religious people that they need to follow their religion, for the sake of their salvation. And it doesn't help when politicians decide to vote or enact legislature based on “Biblical principles” or their religious beliefs (which goes against the first amendment).

          • DCP the Lesser

            Nope. Failure to live religion is bad, not religion itself. Those who fail to live religion are the ones to watch for because they have no real, moral compass. See Hitler and Stalin and Mao, for example.

            Many religions seek converts. It is how they grow and perpetuate. There are many variants. Some are more hardcore in their views of what they call eternal judgment; some are less; yet others somewhere in between.

            Sometimes certain types of legislation also have other than moral imperatives. You are aware that the average lifespan for practicing homosexuals is lower than straights, aren't you? Again, consult the medical literature, if you don't believe it.

            In any case, the reverse to your legislative quandary can be considered equally true. It is just a matter of time before homosexuals find creative ways to make the adherents of religion who do not agree with them or their practices suffer. Some already are trying. Lawsuits filed against Bible companies for translating a text correctly, a lawsuit against a barber shop owned by Muslims who refused to cut a woman's hair because their variant of Islam forbids a man touching any woman's hair that is not the hair of a relative, and on and on it goes and will go, not just in the US but elsewhere. It is just the beginning of erosion of rights.

            Interesting to see how much you seem to support such things. Most pawns aren't even aware they are being used.

          • sunflowergirl67

            “But also consider that Lot likely only offered them because he didn't think the men of the city would take him up on it because of their proclivity for men.”

            Where does it say that, or is that your interpretation?

            That's the thing with the Bible. Interpretations.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I never wrote that it said that. I offered no interpretation, I merely asked you to consider that it was a likely scenario. This can be inferred from the text itself, as well as by inductive logic.

            Lot lived in the cities of the plain for some time. The proclivities of the men in the cities would have been well known. This is further reinforced when they announce their stated intent to sodomize the men who were Lot's guests. It was further reinforced when they then decided to do worse to Lot. Learn Hebrew. It will help you understand the text better. They fully intended to sodomize Lot and his visitors.

            Frankly, guys who are as intent on sodomizing visiting males are less likely to be interested in raping women. Just saying. Think about it. Why do women often feel safer being around a fully gay man at the club scene? It would not be hard to see that even ancient people might be able to figure out something like that based upon observation.

            As to interpretations, certainly there are varying interpretations of ancient texts. That is the biggest problem with English translations. That is why it is important to learn ancient languages and also to compare texts with texts to determine meaning as close as one can come to the original meaning. All translations are interpretations, too.

            But, it still does not change the fact that the Bible mentions homosexuals, and that it condemns their activities. That is pretty solidly determined by those who actually can read the texts and don't seek justification of sinful practices. I have seen many lies published to try to get rid of the actual meaning of the words in the texts. And, they are that–lies.

            These lies are akin to such lies that it was legal for gay marriage in ancient Rome and that one of the Emperors married a gay lover. When one reads the actual historical texts, however, we learn something entirely different. That Emperor loved shock value in everything he did, and faked a wedding as a kind of play. It so outraged the people in the town and scandalized the Senate that he was taken out and killed, as as his mother for teaching such things to him.

            When one reads in various literature that homosexuality was permitted in Egyptian religion and thought, and then consults the actual texts themselves, one learns something very different than LGBT literature claims about the texts. The truth, however, is something different. Those men who could not honestly state in the Declaration of Innocence that they have never copulated with other men were assured a trip to the belly of Amut.

            Another lie was the claim that two Egyptian men who were buried together in the same tomb were gay and married lovers. Were it not for the inscriptions themselves, people might fall for that lie. The inscriptions themselves showed and stated that the two men were brothers, with the same father and mother and family. They were so close and so honored by Pharaoh that they were provided a tomb and buried together so that they could continued that same closeness in Amenta. But that won't stop that lie from continuing to be circulated.

            Do I need go on?

          • sunflowergirl67

            “Do I need go on?”

            Please don't. I don't really even read half of the rambling stuff you post. Because I really just don't care.

          • DCP the Lesser

            I know you say you don't really care. But if you really didn't, you would not have replied. But, it is more for the benefit of other readers who the LGBT community and their supporters try to mislead with lies of first magnitude.

          • DCP the Lesser

            The New Testament superseded the dietary and ritual purity laws, but not the moral laws, because they were but the shadows of the coming reality of Christ and were a schoolmaster to prepare those observant Jews for the future.

            The only thing that was superseded in the case of the moral laws was removal of the death penalty for said sins. But, in the case of homosexuality, the New Testament never superseded those teachings or others of the moral laws.

            Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and related sins, all remained sins in both Testaments. In fact, even lusting after others became sin in the eyes of Christ.

          • sunflowergirl67

            But you're still picking and choosing what to believe in and what to follow.

          • DCP the Lesser

            How so? When Jesus says that the law is fulfilled in him but still lists a number of things as sins in what we have left of his teaching, as well as the fact that marriage honored by God is between male and female, and when his chosen apostles also teach that such things as homosexuality are sins, how is that picking and choosing? The dietary and purity laws were suspended by Christ and his apostles themselves. If I were to choose to follow those teachings how am I picking and choosing like you are?

          • Billy Wages

            You didn't cite your sources. Therefore, you fail.

          • ReallyStudiedTheBible

            Right on about the pearls to swine. Its obvious sunflowergirl67 that you haven't read the Bible- homosexuality defined as sin is in several portions of the old testament and new and marriage is defined only between a man and a women over the course of the whole of scripture. Don't try telling those of us who have put in the time and our trust in the Holy Spirit of God that we have no idea what we're talking about- you pretty much revealed your own hand in saying so.

          • beowulf32

            I will give you a clue but its up to you to let your fingers do the walking. Try Romans

          • Try thinking sometimes.

            she's anti-paul, that wont work

          • sunflowergirl67

            Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

          • Billy Wages

            I've never tried but you could probably Google Leviticus.

          • sunflowergirl67

            Right, except the Old Testament doesn't apply. According to other commenters.

          • Billy Wages

            Try Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. There are many
            others.
            In the old testament, homosexuality was punishable by
            death. But when Jesus came to save us, He included many
            things as ‘sin', and homosexuality was one of them.

      • DCP the Lesser

        Then it wouldn't have been, but since that hypothetical never happened, it is a moot argument. 1 Corinthians is not the only letter containing the word, by the way. The same Greek compound word can be found in one of the Pastorals as well. It also is not the only letter condemning homosexual behaviors.

        The book of Jude also condemns the practice in no uncertain terms in the Greek text, stating that the burning down of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of the kind of eternal burning that those who go after “strange flesh” will receive. We know exactly what is being talked about because in the text that mentions Sodom and Gomorrah states that they were wicked cities that had no qualms about sodomizing other men and even sodomizing women if opportunity presented itself.

        The Book of Romans also condemns both male-male same sex relationships as well as lesbian relationships, stating that under the law of God what they do makes them worthy of death. We also know about the Old Testament condemning men having sex with men as they would with women. While dietary laws were suspended by the New Testament, the teachings concerning the sinfulness of homosexuality were not suspended but continued.

        And, you cannot use Jesus as an example of not explicitly condemning the practices because not everything that he taught and did was written, only things that would lead to belief in Christ. For Christians, it was enough that Jesus himself taught that marriage ordained of God was between male and female.

  • Row D

    Human Being is a smart one. He says he don't watch A&E and he's gonna contact them. And what tell them you don't watch their channel anyway, your girlish panties are all in a bind over what, a comment by someone you don't watch. Foolish. Most comments by the gay community are offensive to me, thing is I don't care cuz I don't listen to them unless i'm flipping through the channels and stop to listen in discust. I think the main difference is I'm not a whiney pole smoker that thinks everyone should think like me.

    • Hammer

      This is to sunflower or whatever your name is. Let's leave the Bible alone, because you seem not to want to hear what is truth from people of ancient times. They understood the risk of this behavior even before regular medical professionals did. They understood the damage of these types of activities on the individuals and society as a whole. Here it is thousands of years later even after the CDC continually tells the public to abstain from this type of behavior. Alarm bells sound about an epidemic is upon us and the wreckage this behavior leaves on the participants. They still defy commonsense saying that they were born this way, with no evidence of the sort. Also, demanding that everyone see this as normal, which they don't. How much more evidence is needed to open ones eyes. By statistics less than 2% of the population accounts for over 60% of the new cases of GLADD. However, they assume the remaining balance is related to some behavior involving un-natural behavior bi-sexuals. If you can't believe truth, then look at the science.

      • Hammer

        Also, please never ever equate a black person with being the same as a homosexual. One is a racial group, while the other is a participant in a behavior group. There is absolutely nothing similar in our situations. I have people who are very near and dear. However, I do not agree with their behavior. Again, it is their choice to participate in it. I have no choice you can see that I am black a mile away. You only know them by their behavior and their admissions to their activities.

  • RB

    Hahaha … tickles the h*** out of me. It's about time the silent majority arose and became vocal. Looks like that's finally starting to happen. While I don't agree with everything Phil said, don't condemn gays or minority groups, and don't normally even watch Duck Dynasty, I, for one, am tired of the minority groups setting the precedents and policy for the news media, TV networks, corporations and society in general. Phil didn't make his statements on the DD show. He made them in some obscure GQ interview. Almost looks like a setup. I figured A&E would renege because TV networks are worried mostly about two things: money and ratings. We, the majority, have power, folks. Let's use it in the future.

    • sunflowergirl67

      What silent majority? Christians and conservatives love bitching and moaning about how oppressed they are and how the world is so horrible for letting teh gayz have teh rights.

      And GQ is obscure? It's one of the most popular men's magazines that's currently being published.

      • Billy Wages

        You lying…..You just described the libs and Democrats. Don't pin
        your cry-baby ways on us.

  • rick

    who cares what he said, were you expecting something intelligence ?

    • Billy Wages

      It was intelligent.

  • metazip

    First of all how the heck does Patricia know what Phil thinks? Second, He doesn't think this way, he has faith in his beliefs from the bible. Something Patricia Todd, A&E, and the rest of the pro gay groups know nothing about. Yes, it's really that simple, even a moron can git’ it…

  • Monty

    It's cool. But damn, ya'all know it's all about the money. I agree with him. But sh#t. We all know it's about the money they all make. Add a problem, then SHI#. More money for all. I Don't blame'em. The american way. What I fought for! Happy new Year.

  • letmeeatcake

    …instead of meeting with all of jesse jacksons flaky friends, he should go on a hunting trip with the duck dynasty people…or maybe the rev. jesse jackson just needs to go to church…

  • mrs. guest

    Phil Robertson poster boy for inbred amerikkkans.

  • Bill Cougar

    Shouldnt an organization speak up for drunks? Being a drunk is not a choice.

  • Lewis Walter

    How about a demand that jessie jackson shut his mouth, and that all news networks stop wasting ink, or vidio on his rantings!!!!!

  • vic

    tea bagging trailer trash believe in freedom of speech: just ask the Dixie Chicks!

  • Lori

    GLADD woke up a sleeping dragon (Christian majority) when it went after a man's religious beliefs.

  • JJFlash

    Tell Jesse Jackson to make sure his plate is clean before he makes comments on others. As far as I am concerned, he is a hipocrite. At least Old Phil is honest and says what he feels unlike many other folks who only talk in little groups. I am referring to Blacks as well as Whites.

  • SGTMOORE

    TIM MOLLOY: ‘You’ sir, are NO GENTLEMAN! you have no consideration to the rights of GAYS you damage their plight with your ZEALOT'S approach!
    Nor do you care for Black American rights, your pieces so far are full of ILL opinionated angry, and DISMAL SMUT, This story spills DISSENT and RABIES from your teeth and rotten mind, into the world you have spilled poison of the foulest kind: INFLAMMATORY PRO RACIAL AND BIGOTRY, HATE!

    Whilst you where writing, know that the PEOPLE! where not ignorant, those of us who took the time AND READ the whole article's interview TEXT! found that Mr Phil Robertson:
    (1) has worked in COTTON FIELDS along with all manner of people and color of skin, that he worked with them as comrades! which puts him in the race issue; as a ‘how to model’ for inter racial peer bonding of the HIGHEST FORM!
    (2) Deeply cares for the souls of people, so much that he risked RIDICULE AND PERSECUTION for his beliefs by voicing that he worries for “ALL SINNERS”, this makes him an incredibly DEVOUT CHRISTIAN, and a hopeless romantic for thinking the world was ready to embrace love to all, minding that he is a christian exercising HIS FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND 1RST amendment right to express it!

    And about GAYS, are you really saying that GAYS are above sin? mind you SIN means to offend GOD with your thought and action! to go against THE COVEN of God and MAN. when in in scripture we are all SINNERS and still loves us all, and “God”(of the christian belief) deemed that homosexual behavior is just that, a BEHAVIOR(a subculture) and further that it was a detestable act in his eyes! because he did not design HUMANS for such things.
    TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION! God(the verb, the action, the word) did give humanity CHOICE AND FREE WILL! (which Obama is infringing on with his Obama-care's obligatory nature) but i digress.

    Mr Tim Molloy, i as a forgiving person, DO invite you to APOLOGIZE, for the manner in which you have SLANDERED Mr Robertson, lest you are willing to face criminal charges for DAMAGES to his INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, as Mr Roberton does have a case against you and Yahoo if he so wished it, due to the over abundance of evidence floating online with your signature, in direct action to damage his reputation and taking a direct attack against his INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Know that as a columnist for YAHOO and a reporter of sorts you have a RESPONSIBILITY to the truth, to be UNBIASED! and reserve your opinions to a place outside of the actual column, like the COMMENTS, the article's BODY is supposed to be FACTUAL AND TRUE! free from, DISSUADING SENSATIONALISM.
    The reasons why THE CRACKER BARREL RESTAURANTS, and A&E are reinstating the show and supporting the products is, simple, THERE WAS NO OFFENSE COMMITTED, GIVEN IN HIS STATEMENTS, during the interview, while he exercised, his GOD GIVEN and US CONSTITUTIONALLY protected rights to belief and OPINION to remind us that WE THE PEOPLE, who where created equal, and watch over by the same GOD!, need more FAITH! in our lives to become closer to divinity and love one another more properly! Find something to believe in, Mr Molloy, or you will fall for anything, making an incredibly irresponsible fool of yourself, since you are in the public access and opinion industry, ruining the good name of Yahoo and ruining not just YOUR credibility, but that of the company you represent.

  • E. de Mas

    It seems people are confused. Free speech doesn't mean people have to applaud or agree with your speech. A person is free to tell their employer to go “·%$ themselves. The employer in question is also free to fire the employee.

  • Alabama Airsoft-Armory

    I have seen several posts claiming that the bible does not address homosexuality. Let me clear this up for you: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Leviticus 18:21-23 any questions?

    • sunflowergirl67

      There are a lot of things in Leviticus. It also forbids men from touching women who are menstruating. It talks about how one should beat his wife. It talks about men taking multiple wives. It talks about dietary laws. Are you sure you want to bring up Leviticus?

      • DCP the Lesser

        Yes, there are a lot of things in Leviticus, a lot of which no longer is pertinent to Christians because Christ not only fulfilled the Law of ordinances but nailed these to his cross.

        I have never, ever read anything in Leviticus that would advocate or legislate how to beat one's wife. I think you are confusing the Qur'an with the Bible. And, even that verse of the Qur'an (don't recall which one at the moment) uses a word that forbids actual, harmful beating of one's spouse. It is more a humiliation to remind a woman to remain faithful to her husband. But, again, I think you are confusing the Bible with the Qur'an.

        Priests and high Priests could not touch menstruating women during the time of their ritual purity while performing ordinances. They could not touch dead bodies, either. Other men than the priests were not to have sexual relations with menstruating women. I have explained elsewhere why the dietary laws and purity rituals no longer apply, though. See above posts where I do that.

        But, the moral code still remains in effect and is expanded in the New Testament and in Christianity–at least among those Christians who still believe the Bible. Romans 1:26-32 are clear enough on what God thinks about the matter. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states that homosexuality is among sins that will keep people out of the kingdom of God except they repent. In verse 11 of the same chapter, Paul reminds the Corinthians that even they were among such people before they were cleansed by the blood of Christ after repentance. The earthly death penalty for homosexuality may have been suspended but not the spiritual penalty. It remains.

  • cricket0625

    all the sudden the honorable reverend “Jesse Jackson” wants to open his mouth about some remarks made by Phil. I guess theres no such thing as the 1st amendment anymore! Oh, and where the hell are jackson, sharpton, and all the other high powered political bigots hiding when the {blacks on Jews “knockout-games”} are going on? I didn't see anybody step up then, but when the white guy does it, OMG, now all the government agencies want to get involved. The 2-3 individuals that got killed over these extraneous games got less news coverage than the single ignorant white male that hit the elderly black gentleman…see the problem here?

    • sunflowergirl67

      Once again, this is not a 1st Amendment rights issue. If you think it is, then you clearly have no idea what the first amendment actually says.

  • Lulu Morin

    It is very worthwhile. We are having laws passed without majority approval which are eroding our social structure in order to accommodate a very small minority. I think it is really scary. Unbelievably California passed a law giving transgender students the right to use the locker rooms, showers and bathrooms of the opposite physical sex. This law was passed without vote even though it strips away my children's right to privacy. Laws need to be passed to protect the majority. Right to religion, speech, privacy. Laws need to be passed to protect the Christian Charities who believe homosexuality is a sin from being shut down if they don't approve. Laws need to be passed to stop the harassment and financial harm of organizations labeled “haters”.

    • sunflowergirl67

      I take it you fancy how the third Reich handled things?

  • CE

    These people are truly idiots.

  • jmm

    say it like it is phil, and as far as jesse jackson goes he is one of the many problems the blacks need to deal with if they ever want equality.

  • derril

    I am from Louisiana, and would like to say “Thank You” to the state of Alabama for supporting a brother Louisianan Phil Robertson.

  • Joan

    Jackson “demanded” a meeting. Why–he is not going to change Phil's beliefs. Get a grip Jackson. You don't run things

  • thor

    even though crude he did paraphrase and quote the scriptures at best. Even myself looked up all 6 and sure enough Phil is right. Yet, missed one which is in the Book of Revelations as to immoral acts and such and dieing the second death and lake of fire.Ok now Mr. Jackson you impetus fool that you are, is that if Phil work in cotton fields and noticed blacks not complaining or whatever then how do you know for a fact it was different where Phil was at while farming and picking cotton. If they seemed happy then I suppose they were. Do you so called Reverend as such have proof they were not happy at the time. And it could be that Phil worked in an area where there was no problems. So in other words Mr. Jackson your accusatory remark is NOT justified. It just goes to show that people like your self love and cherish the flames of stirring the pot, of hatred, racial tensions and such. Most Priest, Deacons, Rabbis, Ministers and Reverends are preaching peace and good will. All I ever hear is the opposite from you, Oprah and others.

  • David Foster

    A@E made free speech an issue when they broke a contract and fired Phil over statements that he made to an interviewer. oh yes. this would have landed in court and Phil's freedom to state how he feels would most definitely have been the center-point of the trial. A@E wanted no part of that can of worms.

    • Me

      Every contract has a morality clause. You say something the corporation doesn't like they fire you. Do you stand with Martin Bashir on what he said about Sarah Palin?

      • David

        Not so fast! First, Bashir profusely apologized and then resigned in shame for his truly hateful words. Phil wasn't calling for someone to defecate in another's mouth – not even close! Secondly, there is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that states an employer cannot discriminate against an employee for his religious beliefs. No “morality” clause is going to prevent someone from practicing their religion – that in itself would be illegal.

      • David Foster

        Yes I am aware of the morality clause, but it can't be invoked as easily or as freely as you seem to think. the reason for invoking it had better be damn solid if a multi-million dollar broken contract ends up in court. martin Bashir knew that he f***ed up and accepted the consequences. he knew he couldn't win that fight if he tried. So he didn't. Phil spoke about himself. Phil spoke about how HE feels, and about what is sin in the eyes of God. That's not hate speech nor is it just cause to fire him. A@E realized that they made a bad mistake legally, religiously, and in the face of THE MAJORITY of Americans who are not homo-maniacs. Did I clear up a few things for you cupcake?.

  • David Foster

    jesse Jackson has admitted to spitting in white peoples food back when he had to actually work for a living, he's not a friend of Jewish people, and refers to new York as “Hymee-town”. the list goes on, look it up. ole’ jesse is nothing but a money grubbing publicity whore to the blacks and the self appointed “official negro” to the mainstream press.

    • Nicholas70

      Jesse Jackson is an opportunistic grievance junkie, out to stir up trouble and find a way to profitize off of it.
      He could care less about the black community. Same goes for Al Sharpton, another agitator and muckraker in it for personal gains.
      When will the blacks see how these two scam artists are hiding behind them?

      • David

        Kinda like the racist who currently occupies the White House – The Community “Agitator” in Chief…

  • Jody

    That's right, sheep. Allow yourself to be pacified by Phil being brought back on. Allow yourself to be pacified, feeling that your right to free speech is being protected (when it was never infringed upon). Meanwhile, more states are legalizing gay marriage all of the time, and states, like Colorado and Texas, are becoming more and more purple.

    You inbreds are not in the majority anymore. You're a loud and obnoxious minority that does not realize how ignorant you are and simply refuses to shut your damn mouth. After 8 years of Obama, you're going to get 8 years of Hilary. 2014 may be your last stand.

    You have no idea that you have already lost…

    • Nicholas70

      So the gay/lesbo freaks of GLAAD will take over the country.
      Maybe I should invest in poppers for them.
      Also I should invest in pharmaceuticals for all their STD's. they will spread around. At least I can make money off of their misery.
      Always some opportunity to cash in on some ones actions.

      GLAAD = Gays and Lesbians Advocating An(a)l Diseases.

      • DCP the Lesser

        I've been hearing rumors for a few years now about corporations secretly developing a nasal spray that can prevent same sex attraction in the first place.

        They think that the process starts from a failure in proper glutamate expression in the brains that can be cleared up by suppressing glutamates. They say that sexual orientation in fruitflies can be changed back and forth by changing the chemistry. I have seen actual medical and other scientific literature that shows this to be the case with fruitlies. They made them gay by introducing glutamates into their diet. They then switched them back to heterosexuals by removing them and suppressing glutamate expression. And the change back was permanent. These things were among the weirdest things I ever have read.

        If that holds true for humans, it would be easy to turn something like that into a nasal spray so the rumors I have heard sound very, very believable. Perhaps we can hope that the rumors are true and that one day there will be a cure for same sex attraction for those who want it. That should cut down that population considerably after a few decades.

    • Rick

      I wouldn't get too comfortable. Christians are mobilizing in the biggest numbers ever! We were responsible for A&E reversal. This is also the biggest year of repealed gun laws! We are still the majority, that wont change for a few hundred years, if ever! Christian conservatives are 80% of the country. What most people, including yourself, don't know, is that more than half of all Christian conservatives, don't vote or protest, or challenge the courts. We are humble and fair, we don't care if gays want civil unions, but reserve our right to call it sinful. Just like our adultery, drunkenness, and greed are sinful. But we ask forgiveness, we repent. But we have been pushed to far this time! The country will now see what the majority can do!

    • DCP the Lesser

      I actually am looking forward to that. Maybe this time Americans will learn. I'll bet you were completely unaware of what the Democrats tried to do to you just a couple years ago. They tried to cause your electric rates to “skyrocket” (Obama's own word to describe what his energy plan would have done had he succeeding in getting it passed), tried to raise the average price of gasoline to over $6/gallon, tried to make it legal for people with conflicts of interest to hold positions of oversight, tried to remove a law regulating worker and environmental safeties in the Energy Sector, etc. That would have hugely raised the cost of living on everyone and would have buried more of the middle class.

      The Democrats also tried to pass it by slipping all that into so-called jobs and veterans legislation. When Republicans in the House killed it they then used it as propaganda and told Americans, “Look! The Republicans are killing jobs and veterans legislation! We can't work with them! The voters need to get rid of them all! so we can accomplish our goals for the bettering of America!”

      Raising the minimum wage also is another one of their ploys to garner further votes. But, they don't tell the American public that doing that as high as they are pushing for will raise the cost of living in response a couple years following, plunging the public to a worse state than they were before. They are hoping the public will fall for it again and get angry at Republicans. If you and people like you fall for that again, you actually will get what they tried to push onto America and you will be very, very sorry as more people from the middle class (possibly including yourselves) are pushed down into the poverty classes. It is their agenda to destroy the middle class.

      They cannot remake society into their ideal of a two-class society of aristocrats and poverty-stricken slave class dependent on government until they accomplish this and collapse the economy. They do that, in part, by constant debt-spending and raising the cost of living. Add to this the destruction of the tradition family, also part of their overall agenda, relaxation of moral laws, and overregulation of businesses not supporting their agenda, and we may well eventually reach their goal for society. If you want to get a kind of preview for that kind of future society to which their agenda has the potential to reach, read the Hunger Games Trilogy. You may think I am kidding around about that but if you study every piece of legislation Democrats have passed and see the outcome and follow the logical conclusions of the patterns hidden within said legislation, you will see it, too.

      Give them what they want. Go ahead. Maybe you will learn this time around. But, something else you should be aware of is that they also are using the Gay Agenda as pawns to accomplish their purposes. Do you enjoy being a pawn in their game?

  • lisa

    why is it everytime a famous person says something about Christians its ok but let someone speak out about gays or blacks they are the ones being sued big time rap stars calls each other names or even has wrong words or killing in their song but I don't see anyone going after them its just the Christian people that gets in trouble me personally am offened by the rappers and the songs and the hard rockers sing about drinking and smoking crack and what have it but I choose not to listen to this kind of music if you don't like what people says you turn your ears off don't watch or read it what phil said was to his belief and I also belive the same way in my constitution it says we are free to speak what ever we want and same sex is wrong I don't care who you are it was your right as a gay to be out about this but don't mean people has to like it or live like you and its our right to say so but don't rub your ways in our face because you don't want us to rub our Christian values in your face so there I said it im glad phil said it and I stand behind him marriage is supposed to be between man and woman sex is supposed to be man and woman if you don't like it then fine but don't rub it in by suing someone for saying whats right in their book

  • beautifuldayifyoubelieve

    A Contest started yesterday for someone to come up with a new acronym for GLAAD, because we all know these people are anything but Glad. It seems more HATE speech comes out of this organization that anything positive.

    • Mark james

      Really? since day one I have been writing this one

      GLADD's New meaning… “Gays Lost Against Duck Dynasty” Where do I enter

  • Lynn

    Sunflower: if you don't care about what Christians believe or what the Bible says why are you still on here ranting about it? When I don't care about something I let it go and move on.

    • Rick

      Exactly! They act like they know the bible, but then say they don't believe! Well if they didn't believe it, why does it bug them so much? Perhaps its because they secretly do believe, and they are bad people that don't want to hear the truth, and it pisses them off

  • Fro

    It is about homosexuality, adultery, bestiality, and other sexual sins actually being sin as stated throughout the Bible…People engaging in these practices don't like to hear the truth that they are under God's Judgment…Phil just stated what was written in the Bible…sin is illogical.

  • Rob Singer

    jessie jackson do not need any money … he got money all over the world … every country on the planet like mr.jackson just fine except white america ..white european .. white canada …

  • Rick

    We won!! A&E has apologized and reversed their decision, giving into pressure from the majority!! And Christian Conservatives are the majority!! Another sign of things to come!! America and the constitution is alive and well!!

  • Mark james

    Still with the INSERTED lie “for making anti-gay comments” It was anti SIN!

  • steve

    My daughter is gay and she says she's upset with glaad. Those people keep trying to push their lifestyle on the American people. My daughter knows I don't agree with her
    lifestyle. But I still love her and we have a great relationship. NO child should be raise by two daddies or mommies.

  • Chaeli Nayeli

    I just read another article on this God fearing reformed born again individual telling me to lock up my daughters away from his predator defenders because he believes they should be seducing my daughters into marriage before they are ready. Appears Mr. Robertson professes that you have to marry them while they are still teens or they are ruined by the time they turn 20. But hey, molesting teens and professing his followers should be doing the very same thing is his constitutional right. I'll just make damn sure my daughters aren't allowed anywhere near these potential child molesters.

    • DCP the Lesser

      Hmmm… Where again did you read that? Link, please.

  • DukeJW

    Christianity is under fire as outmoded, and superstitious, at least according to the libs. Conservatives don't need to give up Christianity to complete the domination of liberalism.

  • Steve

    This man, and people of his time, are only fueling hatred towards gays in their comments. Its rather grotesque, his words. But in time, the old will roll out, and the new will roll in. Theres too many people against the hatred of homosexuals, and a far greater number in favor of them.
    So have you time, Phil. Embellish in what is free speech. Just know that such sentiments are waning, and you will be one of the last few to take them with you when you go. God Bless.

    • DCP the Lesser

      Phil Robertson did not say one thing about hating gays or trying to fuel hatred of gays. All he did was quote the Bible and make reference to its definition of sin. So many people bearing false witness these days…

  • DCP the Lesser

    With parental permission. And, he was doing a lot of joking around about “river rat counsel,” “if she picks your ducks…now that's a real woman,” and the like, while saying what he did. But, not once did he say that girls are damaged goods or ruined after 20.

    You should watch the actual video of his sermon–the complete one, not the edited version, and stop believing the mainstream Media lies about him. The Media is angry and they are trying to do to him what they tried to do with President Bush when they made up and published all that “AWOL from the military” garbage, complete with faked documents.

    • Chaeli Nayeli

      I see. Start seducing them young and once you brainwash them into marrying you and they, “Finally turn to the ripe age of 15,” seek out their parents permission to marry them. I got you. To me, that is pedophilia. Me get a clue? If I walked in and found you attempting to seduce my little girls into marrying your pedo supporting butt, well, in my state they do take the law into their hands and out of mine. I do not watch Hippocrates or bigots sermons period. Using Bush to justify you or your religions belief in pedophilia is comparing bad apples to rotten oranges.

      • DCP the Lesser

        You need to listen to and see the actual video, to see and listen to whom he was addressing in his anecdote. He was telling a story laced with a joke. Nothing more. You want to see worse and nothing more. So, yes, you do need to get a clue instead of falling for the media hype.

        And, it looks like you do not comprehend very well what you read. I was using no one to justify anything. I was showing what the Media have done in lying and using false information to make a person look bad as an attempt to silence a person with a voice. I have stated that the Media have done this before and Americans let them get away with it. Do you not remember all the Media trying to convince Americans that a re-elected Bush would bring the Draft to our children and grandchildren, even though Bush repeatedly denied he wanted a Draft? Do you recall that this claim never happened? It was a big lie that would have made Joseph Goebbels and Adolph Hitler proud.

        Some of the Media are doing exactly the same thing in misquoting and misusing the video footage that they did to Bush. Sadly, many of them are completely willing to fabricate evidence and you and much of the public have fallen for it time and time again. Will Americans never learn? How many times to do need to be lied to before you start to figure things out?

        Find the complete actual video and watch it. He doesn't even speak about homosexuals in that sermon. Whether you agree or not afterward, at least you will be speaking from an informed opinion rather than the one you have been conditioned to believe. Or, remain lied to and use the lie as an excuse believe your fairy tale because it suits your purposes in passing propaganda and rumors like a little gossip. Your choice.

        By the way, Hippocrates was a real person (believed to have been the source of the Hippocratic Oath regarding doing no harm in the practice of medicine). I suspect the word you were looking for was hypocrites. But, even that doesn't really apply. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be something s/he is not.