Posted on 12/21/2013 3:04:02 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
If Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson is a bigot, then liberals need to (once and for all) provide scriptures that condone homosexuality, so as to support their contention that Christians can believe that the Bible - especially the New Testament (NT) - condones homosexuality.
1.) Several MSM talking heads have retorted that there are many Christians that believe that homosexual behavior isn't a sin. Fine. I imagine that since they claim to be Christians, then as followers of Christ (Christ - ians) they will surely have at least one scripture where Jesus (in the New Testament) condones homosexual behavior.
2.) If they say that there are no scriptures that condemn homosexuality, then they are making an argument based upon silence if they provide no scriptures that condone homosexual behavior. If they claim that there are no scripturese that really, truly condemn homosexual behavior, then they are not arguing for the Bible condoning homosexual behavior, but against the Bible condemning it. Arguing against proves nothing, as do arguments based upon silence.
3.) If these liberals say that Christians calling homosexual behavior a sin are bigots, then are they saying that the God (and His Son) who (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) gave us the OT and NT scriptures is a bigot?
4.) If they aren't saying that God is a bigot, then are they saying that the NT scriptures, where Jesus said that a man must not commit fornication, but will leave his father an mother and cleave to his wife in marriage, not wives or husband in marriage - those NT scriptures didn't come from God, but rather are the fantasies of man?
So it comes down to A, B and C.
A.) Liberals don't believe that the scriptures are God-breathed (thus denying a passage in the New Testament cklearly saying this) and don't believe Jesus' words about marriage.
B.) They believe that God is a bigot if they do believe in the inerrancy, authority and God-sourcing of scripture.
C.) They believe that the scriptures are inerrant and have authority, but that Christians must only quote scripture when saying that God is displeased in homosexual behavior, but still loves the homosexual.
But didn't Phil Robertson quote a passage from 1 Corinthians?
Most of these libs don’t believe in God or scripture, so this argument will not mean a thing to them.
However, Robertson does not discrimminate in any action - and says he loves everybody - and that is why he is no bigot.
Libtards have it all ways.
1)They don’t believe in God
2)God is a bigot
3)Jesus loved sodomy
I try to always make sure I target my ethical criticism at sodomy. Attraction or ‘orientation’ was not considered a thing at the time. That’s a recent invention. Nobody cared how you ‘felt’, they cared what you did. Actions made the man.
Sodomy among those who claim exclusive attraction to males is no more evil than sodomy among otherwise normal people in prison. It is an insult to nature.
Not to belittle the probably great points you have in here, but here’s exactly why they’re screaming that Phil Robertson is a bigot - it means they don’t have to actually respond to any of his viewpoints or opinions. It is a reactionary measure to ensure the end of any rational debate.
The homosexual lobby has no desire to discuss their lifestyle, they want to shut down anyone and everyone who makes the slightest mention of them.
And your trying to respond to them with a rational and well thought out argument will get exactly no where with liberals, as they’re still too busy shouting ‘bigot’ from the top of their lungs.
You got it right according to the infallable, inerrant, holy word of God.
To liberals, the Scriptures are as valid and/or subject to modern interpretation as is the Constitution.
Most will just say the Bible is in error.
Many leftists say the Bible is silent on the issue.
They are wrong of course
I don’t know the context of the question GQ asked him, or if the answer as printed was his first response. The one issue I have is that he apparently was asked for his thoughts on sin generally, with no specifics. Rather than speak about the nature of sin in our lives, which he does eventually get at, he jumps immediately to homosexuality. I’ve never seen the show, but is that an issue the family has had to deal with, as they have with adultery? I think it’s far more likely he and his wife worried about masturbation’s temptation on their teenage sons’ lives than whether they were swinging that way. I applaud him for speaking so frankly about his own problems with sin, but I found his answer to that question strangely worded. Of course I don’t entirely trust GQ’s editing. I think they set him up, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the article is dishonestly edited.
Ya know, all these threads on FR have given me an idea for one of you who knows Willie Robertson to give to him:
Next time a DD show is recorded, if ever, when the A&E production crew is on the scene, only discuss with each other why Phil was manipulated, used, and then suspended by A&E for being the character he plays on TV —himself —insuring it’s the only DD footage A&E will be allowed to shoot.
He also tells us that sin separates us from God.
The gays call this hateful.
Is it "hateful" to warn someone a bridge is out, while they are driving a car?
Is it judgemental to warn someone their house is on fire while they watch tv?
Hateful would be to NOT WARN them of impending doom.
Judgemental would be NOT WARNING them of their dangerous actions, just letting them suffer the consequences of whatever they do.
Phil says to love God and to love others.
The highest way to love God AND love others, is to tell people of the love of God the Father and the sacrifice of Jesus, that they may also know God and be saved from their sins that separate them from him.
One of those Gay Mafia Groups defined “Christian” and their definition neither matched with Phil Robertson’s definition, the Bible’s definition or that of evangelical/Catholic Christians in general. He was quoting St. Paul.
Their idea of Christianity is to tolerate everything and everyone with alittle Jesus thrown in for credibility.
The earliest act of contraception in recorded history --- Onan's contraceptive act with Tamar in Genesis 38 --- is condemned by God, quite explicitly; so is every man-man or woman-woman sexual act.
Doesn't matter.
Liberals don't hold the Bible in any esteem whatsoever. Whether it condones or condemns homosexuality doesn't matter to them at all and will not sway their opinions at all.
Any breath expended on such arguments is wasted breath.
Homosexuality is wrong not just because of the religious reasons, but because of the biological reasons.
The reason that sex is emotionally and physically enjoyable is because that enjoyment encourages us to have sex to procreate and perpetuate the species.
Every species is programmed to procreate and perpetuate, and we are no different.
Procreation, in humans, can only happen when a male and a female have sex.
That is natural.
Any other arrangement is unnatural.
Yuh Think???
Its GQ...Gentleman's Quarterly
A magazine about mens fashion. The majority of people who read GQ are women and metrosexual/gay men.
What's wrong with this argument:
Person A: The Bible is the word of God.
Person B: How do you know?
Person A: Because it says so in the Bible.
Fallacious logic aside, your argument is valid. Phil Robertson was quoting the Bible. And the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination. There is no way it is not a sin. The homos can blame him for quoting the Scriptures, but they can't blame him for writing them.
I’m betting that they have a copy of the koran that condones homosexuality.
A prostitute will support a gay, because to point out the sin of a gay person also points out the sin of a prostitute. An adulterer might disagree with sodomy, but when confronted by the sin issue, will defend the gay or prostitute.
Look at all the people on FR who defend drug usage. They jump through hoops to defend it, because they don't want to face the sin issue in themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.