Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[Redfish]

Of course he morphed it into Bestiality. He's free to do so. But he is not free from other opinions of what he said.

Boys from the Bayou should not bring up bestiality

Exactly. When listing my top ten sins, slipping it to the milk cow never comes to mind. LOL

But you want to marry your goat or is that seawytch, can't keep you two separate.

 

[Redfish]

Boys from the Bayou should not bring up bestiality

Jesus H Chryst, he looks like he could have been on the set of Deliverance

I want you to squeal like a pig.....

what you and boo boo do in private is your own business---------please Please do not post any pictures.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Robertson put homosexuality in the same category as bestiality.

He did no such thing. Quit lying.


You damned butt burglars amaze me with your histrionics. Go do your nails and drink a shirley temple.

What do you thing morph mean anyway? What a bunch of cry-babies.

"Happy Holidays"

"Morph" (in the way Robertson used it) was a continuation. One thing leads to another. The logical outcome. He never stated (or implied) that they were the same.

As to being in the same "category" - they are. They are both perversions.

Use your head. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[Redfish]

He did no such thing. Quit lying.


You damned butt burglars amaze me with your histrionics. Go do your nails and drink a shirley temple.

What do you thing morph mean anyway? What a bunch of cry-babies.

"Happy Holidays"

"Morph" (in the way Robertson used it) was a continuation. One thing leads to another. The logical outcome. He never stated (or implied) that they were the same.

As to being in the same "category" - they are. They are both perversions.

Use your head.

asking a liberal to think is like asking a snail to speak.

 

[Vox]

Robertson put homosexuality in the same category as bestiality.

Nope. He did no such thing.

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.

Perhaps nobody taught you context in English class, but there it is. Note how he was listing what he saw as a sin, not comparing anything to anything.

Of course he morphed it into Bestiality. He's free to do so. But he is not free from other opinions of what he said.

no he did not.
he paraphrased the Corinthians where the sins which prevent you salvation are listed in a row, separated by a comma.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This should come as no surprise whatsoever to the sane people on the board:

It seems our Mr. Kormac had a much different opinion of employee's constitutional rights vs. employers' rights

when TK didn't like the content of what the employees were saying or doing:

From 3 months ago, subject, minimum wage protests:

TK:

"How about these fast food workers sit down and shut the hell up. If they want more pay, they need to go to college. I am not paying you 15 bucks an hour to flip burgers. I hope each and every one of them are fired for their little outburst. Maybe it will teach them to be happy with what they have."


Dance, pardner...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ort-the-fast-food-workers-20.html#post7774082[/QUOT]

Just like the rest of them.

Tolerant as hell of racist, bigotry, homophobia, hatred of women and children ... Tolerant of homelessness, hunger, desperation among our vets, disabled, elderly ...
Tolerant of fascism from the right because they still don't know what the hell the word means.

Old fart DD guy isn't losing anything.

Well, except that now everyone knows that he's turned on by man on man porn.

(American TV has really hit bottom with this one but, I think I read that $illy$arah is getting yet another chance to quit a job.)

 

[Katzndogz]

Robertson was right. Once a perversion becomes acceptable, the next perversion is easier to accept and the next one after that. The end result is grotesque.

 

[RandallFlagg]

What do you thing morph mean anyway? What a bunch of cry-babies.

"Happy Holidays"

"Morph" (in the way Robertson used it) was a continuation. One thing leads to another. The logical outcome. He never stated (or implied) that they were the same.

As to being in the same "category" - they are. They are both perversions.

Use your head.

asking a liberal to think is like asking a snail to speak.

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

 

[Sallow]

"Morph" (in the way Robertson used it) was a continuation. One thing leads to another. The logical outcome. He never stated (or implied) that they were the same.

As to being in the same "category" - they are. They are both perversions.

Use your head.

asking a liberal to think is like asking a snail to speak.

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

So is this like the old testament thing about gays, abomination or new testament thing about gays, error.

Not sure.

 

[Pogo]

"Morph" (in the way Robertson used it) was a continuation. One thing leads to another. The logical outcome. He never stated (or implied) that they were the same.

As to being in the same "category" - they are. They are both perversions.

Use your head.

asking a liberal to think is like asking a snail to speak.

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

Bullshit. That's just you inserting exclusivity where none was stated. As written down by a third party long after the event one might add.

Again -- "butt burglars"?

 

[Redfish]

asking a liberal to think is like asking a snail to speak.

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

Bullshit. That's just you inserting exclusivity where none was stated. As written down by a third party long after the event one might add.

Again -- "butt burglars"?

do you prefer "fudge packers" ? to literal for you? as clinton said "it is what it is"

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

Bullshit. That's just you inserting exclusivity where none was stated. As written down by a third party long after the event one might add.

Again -- "butt burglars"?

do you prefer "fudge packers" ? to literal for you? as clinton said "it is what it is"

Yeah..I'm done with this PC crap. Perverts better get used to folks (like me) exercising their first amendment rights.

They don't like it? Screw 'em. This PC crap has done nothing but cause division. I'm done with it.

 

[Vox]

asking a liberal to think is like asking a snail to speak.

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

So is this like the old testament thing about gays, abomination or new testament thing about gays, error.

Not sure.

New Testament is much smaller than the Old one.

It is a continuation of the Old with some changes which are much more important than the homosexuality issue, which was addressed extensively by the Sodom and Gomorrah extermination.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If there really were a jesus, he is rolling over in his grave at the way his name and his words are being used to hate and vilify people.

Makes me very proud to say I'm not one of you phony christian bible thumpers.

 

[Pogo]

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

Bullshit. That's just you inserting exclusivity where none was stated. As written down by a third party long after the event one might add.

Again -- "butt burglars"?

do you prefer "fudge packers" ? to literal for you? as clinton said "it is what it is"

Uh -- it's not your post dood.
I just found his phrase .... revealing.

Btw I don't think Clinton coined "it is what it is". Nor does it have any meaning at all -- what else could "it" be but what it is?
A dumbed-down version of "That that is, is; that that is not, is not" and its corollary, "That that is is is that that that that is not is not".

 

[Vox]

so now the leftard PC police wants people who consider homosexuality a sin according to their religious beliefs to go against their beliefs to conform to the leftard PC atheistic police?

Orwellian reality

you are atheists - you should not care what those religious nuts consider a sin.
yet you care to the point of gnashing the teeth

Is it because you are afraid?
And subconsciously follow the Pascal's bet?

 

[Vox]

If there really were a jesus, he is rolling over in his grave at the way his name and his words are being used to hate and vilify people.

Makes me very proud to say I'm not one of you phony christian bible thumpers.

There IS Jesus and He is not in a grave

why do you care what Christians consider a sin, Luddly if YOU are an atheist?

are you afraid those nutters might be right?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I thought Homosexuality was covered in the Old Testament? And the Old Testament isnt followed since the New Testament dropped.

Does that mean people are giving up shellfish again?

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's also similar to butt burglars continually excusing their "behavior" by stating that "Jesus never condemned homosexuality". Hmmm….

As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about the issue. Let me begin with Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)

Here Jesus upholds creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male and female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships. His answer is a blanket ignoring (thus condemnation as perversion) of anything outside God’s standard for sexuality and marriage. This truth cannot be legitimately explained away.

So is this like the old testament thing about gays, abomination or new testament thing about gays, error.

Not sure.

New Testament is much smaller than the Old one.

It is a continuation of the Old with some changes which are much more important than the homosexuality issue, which was addressed extensively by the Sodom and Gomorrah extermination.

When Jesus was on the earth, He repeatedly claimed the "Law of Moses". The New Testament is the historical record of Jesus' time on earth and the resulting formation of Christianity (The Church of Laodecia) and the Disciples. Christians base their religion on both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Therefore, following the "Law of Moses" it is no stretch to understand that it would have never been necessary for Jesus to address homosexuality - it was a given.

For you idiot liberals - it would be like Trotsky stating that it's OK to drive down the street and never mentioning that you have to obey the stop lights.

Able to put THAT into perspective??

 

[Vox]

I thought Homosexuality was covered in the Old Testament? And the Old Testament isnt followed since the New Testament dropped.

Does that mean people are giving up shellfish again?

why do you care? it's not your problem, you are an atheist.

Or IS IT?