Duck Dynasty Patriarch now on hiatus due to homosexual comments in GQ

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=844242

Quote :

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended over anti-gay comments
Dec. 18, 2013, 7:41 PM EST
By Tim Kenneally
TheWrap
"Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson has been suspended from the A&E reality series, following anti-gay remarks he made in an interview with GQ magazine.

In a statement, A+E Networks said he had been placed on indefinite hiatus.

Tell us on Facebook: Did A&E do the right thing?

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty,'" the company said. "His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

Robertson caused controversy with his comments, in which he grouped gays with "drunks" and "terrorists," and said that they won't "inherit the kingdom of God."

And this is the world we've created. No one is allowed to speak up or speak out unless it is in alignment with everyone else. If you hold to a Christian belief, you aren't allowed to talk about it the way Phil discussed.

It's okay for people to come against Christian beliefs, but the moment someone speaks up, people want to condemn that person for speaking their opinion.

What type of world do we live in? If you don't want an honest answer about something, then don't ask the damn question. If you don't like the show, change the channel. If you don't like the article, don't read it.

No, not in today's society, we must shun the person who speaks against homosexuality, and we must attempt to put them on hiatus (indefinitely). It's freakin' ridiculous.

I stand with Phil Robertson. I don't condemn homosexuals, but I do believe their lifestyles are sinful, just as sinful as a man and woman living out of wedlock having pre-marital sex.

This story can be approached from a lot of different angles and I haven't had a lot of time to think about it, so I'll just throw out a few random comments that pop into my head:

*When things like this happen, a lot of people are quick to scream that the "offender" has freedom of speech, but freedom of speech doesn't mean that a person is free from ramifications. Phil Robertson exercised his right to free speech, and A&E is within its rights to react the way it did.

*I don't watch Duck Dynasty and don't know a lot about Robertson, but from what I've read in the past, I don't think anyone should be surprised he has the views he expressed.

*A GLAAD spokesperson said Robertson's comments were "vile." I don't think his comments were hateful. They represent what I assume most Christians believe ... that homosexuality is a sin. You can agree or disagree with that belief, but I don't think it necessarily comes from a place of hate.

Robertson also said:

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying?"

That reminds me of something I heard a famous comedian say on stage a while back. I can't remember who said it and couldn't find the quote, so I'll paraphrase:

"I don't understand homosexuality. I mean, I understand lesbians, but not gay guys. What makes a guy look at another guy's hairy ass and say, 'Yeah! I gotta get me some of that!'?"

Although it was a joke, I think that represents how a lot of straight guys think, and it was basically the same thing Robertson said. Again, it really wasn't coming from a place of hate. Just more or less, "Uh, I don't get it ..."

*Most of the time it isn't what is said, but who says it. Over the past year or so, Alec Baldwin has made more than one comment directed at gays that most definitely can be considered vile. But because he's a member of the liberal Hollywood elite, he didn't face the same level of criticism and scrutiny that Robertson is sure to face.

*It really doesn't matter whether you agree with Robertson or find his comments disgusting. In today's environment, there's no way he was going to get away with saying what he said.

*I'm not a Christian (or religious at all for that matter) and therefore don't believe that homosexuality is wrong because God says so. But based on the arguments I've heard over the years, Christians approach homosexuality basically from one of two places:

1. You're evil. God hates you, and you're going to burn in Hell.
2. Hate the sin but love the sinner.

Christians in the first category come from a place of hate and get most of the attention. They tend to be horrible people. They're the ones who believe things like God sends tornadoes to punish us because we're accepting of homosexuality.

Most Christians I've met in my life fall into the second category. They're not coming from a place of hate, but rather from a place of love. Although I don't share their beliefs, I understand and respect them. I could be wrong since I don't know a whole lot about him, but I think Robertson fits into this category.

I guess my whole problem with the knee jerk reaction to his responses to questions is that we're told to be tolerant of other's beliefs and views but when someone comes out against those beliefs and views, there is no tolerance.

I believe, in our society, we no longer can have a difference of opinion, state it clearly, precisely, and what I believe was a non-aggressive or hateful way, without the general populous who don't agree with those stated difference of views calling for the person to be hanged in the market square.

stlrtruck wrote:

What type of world do we live in?  but I do believe their lifestyles are sinful, just as sinful as a man and woman living out of wedlock having pre-marital sex.

We are living in a world where people are fortunately continuing to move away from this type of bronze age thinking. More of our society is becoming less religious and embracing logic and reason. "Sin" is determined by whatever man is writing the rules and has been that way since man introduced his concept of "sin". Whats good today is bad tomorrow and bad today is good tomorrow, all determined by humans.

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

stlrtruck wrote:

What type of world do we live in?  but I do believe their lifestyles are sinful, just as sinful as a man and woman living out of wedlock having pre-marital sex.

We are living in a world where people are fortunately continuing to move away from this type of bronze age thinking. More of our society is becoming less religious and embracing logic and reason. "Sin" is determined by whatever man is writing the rules and has been that way since man introduced his concept of "sin". Whats good today is bad tomorrow and bad today is good tomorrow, all determined by humans.

And in my belief, the Almighty will judge us all. You can label it bronze age thinking, but I'd rather have faith in God than faith in a human who will eventually, always let me down. I have faith in a God that will never leave me, nor forsake me. I know you think that type of faith is silly and beyond logic, but I've lived a life without God and I'm living a live with Him in it, and I much prefer the life that God is leading me down than the one I was leading myself.

stlrtruck wrote:

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

stlrtruck wrote:

What type of world do we live in?  but I do believe their lifestyles are sinful, just as sinful as a man and woman living out of wedlock having pre-marital sex.

We are living in a world where people are fortunately continuing to move away from this type of bronze age thinking. More of our society is becoming less religious and embracing logic and reason. "Sin" is determined by whatever man is writing the rules and has been that way since man introduced his concept of "sin". Whats good today is bad tomorrow and bad today is good tomorrow, all determined by humans.

 I know you think that type of faith is silly and beyond logic, but I've lived a life without God and I'm living a live with Him in it, and I much prefer the life that God is leading me down than the one I was leading myself.

I just think that religious folk are being naive when thinking their specific god/religion is the only one on the block. The Jew, Hindu, Muslim would say similar things u just did about their particular belief. Im not saying there is or isnt one, Im saying that given the thousands of religions/gods that man has believed in his history, and none being proven to exist, the atheists will keep winning the argument.

Only one religion vs non-belief would give belief a stronger argument, but we dont have that. We have MANY beliefs/gods/religions/holy books vs non-belief. People lose god, then find god, Christian today, Muslim tomorrow, Jewish next week. This makes it harder for those that adhere to religious dogma to prove their side is correct. If this god(s) does exist, he/it must condone all of these different messages in his name since he never settles the debate. Wouldnt be hard for an all powerful deity to let everyone know he/it exists without the aide of man.

Plus the fact that god is a force to some, a being on a cloud to others, or nature itself also weakens the argument. Belief these days is not much different from the "bronze age". Those people had the same issue that people have today: my god is better than your god.

And only one gave His only begotten Son, so that none may perish, and only one died on the cross.

You certainly do have some valid points, especially with the way Christians have it out against one another, as well as other religious groups that continue to battle amongst themselves. It creates an inability to discuss Christ without a person raising questions about why certain churches don't get along with others. It doesn't help when churches like West Baptist are out there petitioning funerals of soldiers.

I certainly believe in what the bible says about sin. None is greater than the other. As well as hate the sin, but love the sinner. I've done too many things wrong in my life to sit and judge people. However, that doesn't change my belief in God and His son Jesus Christ and that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In the bible there is not one time where Jesus condemned a person - the adultress woman, the tax man, the leper, etc. Not one, instead he loved them all but He gave them truth.

And to my point, Phil Robertson's comments, and even his resurrected 2010 sermon are not specifically about homosexuality, they also included adulterers, fornicators, drunkards, etc. It just amazes me that from people who say 'Christians' need to open up and be tolerant of what others believe, they certainly aren't tolerant of 'Christians' beliefs.

So if a gay guy says things about a straight man, would there be the same reaction?

We're becoming too sensitive. That's why the youth of America have such a sense of entitlement. Everyone should get what everyone has and no one can call a duck a duck. We all have our beliefs, and there are more than two sides to the coin. We need to just realize this, accept it, and not persecute people who voice their opinion about something. If you don't like what they're saying, stop listening.

Whyant5 wrote:

So if a gay guy says things about a straight man, would there be the same reaction?

We're becoming too sensitive.  That's why the youth of America have such a sense of entitlement.  Everyone should get what everyone has and no one can call a duck a duck.  We all have our beliefs, and there are more than two sides to the coin.  We need to just realize this, accept it, and not persecute people who voice their opinion about something.  If you don't like what they're saying, stop listening.

Excellent point.

Whyant5 wrote:

So if a gay guy says things about a straight man, would there be the same reaction?

We're becoming too sensitive.  That's why the youth of America have such a sense of entitlement.  Everyone should get what everyone has and no one can call a duck a duck.  We all have our beliefs, and there are more than two sides to the coin.  We need to just realize this, accept it, and not persecute people who voice their opinion about something.  If you don't like what they're saying, stop listening.

He has a right to his beliefs, but his problem as well as those that agree with him is that the America they want isnt the one that exists. We are a highly progressive nation and have been that way for the last 80 plus years and will continue to move in that direction. Those that still hold on to those religious beliefs and views are dying out and younger people my age and even younger prefer free thought, reason, and acceptance of others instead of having exclusive-like beliefs.

Ending school led prayer, women's right to choose and right to vote, civil rights, gay marriage/equality, labor laws, healthcare reform, logic and reason, all of these progressive ideas, and while many are kicking and screaming as we move farther down the road, that is the state of our country. Acceptance is difficult, but at some point opponents will have to stop struggling and face the writings on the wall.

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

logic and reason, all of these progressive ideas, and while many are kicking and screaming as we move farther down the road, that is the state of our country. Acceptance is difficult, but at some point opponents will have to stop struggling and face the writings on the wall.

I've seen things that what you call logic and reason can not explain. The progressive ideas, while some good, not all have or add value to society. However, I will agree that, unfortunately, it is the state of our country. BUT I do not need to accept the way our country is heading, nor will I stop struggling or forsake my beliefs for the way of the world. The Bible is clear, to me, on how things will progress, and this is nothing but a footnote in God's word, and as things continue to move towards a more "progressive" way of life, more and more of God's Word will ring true.



On another note, I was reading some additional news on the topic of the thread. I find it funny that because Phil's sermons and interview were against homosexuality, it was labeled homophobic. Another sad state of affairs, that because us 'bronze age thinkers' don't agree with something we're phobic about it. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I'm phobic about it. I'm not afraid of gays, nor do I hate them but this world, the liberals, would have you believe that if they aren't agreed with it, it's hate. Now does that mean that those who speak out against Christ are Christ-phobic? Once more, Phil didn't just mention homosexuals, he mentioned fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, etc., but the media hype would have you believe he only came out against gays. The story they presented isn't even the full story. Maybe we need someone to present, "The rest of the story..."

So it appears that A&E has reversed their decision to put Phil Robertson on hiatus from the show. GLAAD was impacted by their involvement, and received phone calls like no other moment (according to their own people) they've responded.
Clay Aikens former 'American Idol' winner, made some statements, the one the struck me the funniest is that he thinks Phil's comments are based out of fear (I'll give my opinion later)
And finally Charlie Sheen has put his two cents in on the issue, and he's taking to twitter to defend the voiceless (as he put it).


I'm happy that A&E reversed their decision, but I'd be surprised if the show makes it past this season of filming on A&E. However, I certainly do see it appearing elsewhere. But then again this situation could take the wind out of the sails, at least in the realm of reality TV. And let's face it, the Robertsons have made the most of their 15 minutes of fame.

As for Clay Aiken's comments, I believe he is wrong. Phil's statements aren't made out of fear of homosexuals, as much as they weren't made out of fear of adulterers, fornicators, drunkards, or anyone else. The statements were made out of a belief system that Phil and the Robertson family, as well as many other Americans hold to their core.

I find Charlie's input funny. I understand he's trying to use his position in Hollywood to bring attention to a career that is no longer what it use to be and he wants to be the center of attention, and well the best way to do it is to drop your 2 cents on a high profile situation.

I'm starting to understand how things are suppose to be moving forward. If you don't agree with an alternative lifestyle then it makes you afraid. That's amazing because I'm not afraid of the things I don't believe in as part of my core beliefs. And along those lines, it's ok if those same alternative lifestyle living individuals disagree with my core beliefs, and they're not considered afraid of my core beliefs. Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you're afraid of it. It just means you don't agree with it, and when asked questions about core beliefs you should certainly anticipate that somewhere along the lines people are going to disagree.

At least Phil is back for the rest of the taping of this season. We'll see where Duck Dynasty, the Robertsons, and A&E go from there.

What bothered me about the situation is that every news report kept saying that Phil compared homosexuality with bestiality. That's not accurate at all. All he did was mention them both as sins, as well as other sins like adultery and drunkeness. So why isn't everyone saying that he compared homosexuality with adultery? Or that he compared homosexuality with drunkeness? Simple ... it doesn't fit the narrative and agenda. The same people also twisted Phil's words on civil rights. How can you have an honest discussion with people who refuse to be honest?

stlrtruck wrote:

Clay Aikens former 'American Idol' winner, made some statements, the one the struck me the funniest is that he thinks Phil's comments are based out of fear

 If you don't agree with an alternative lifestyle then it makes you afraid.  That's amazing because I'm not afraid of the things I don't believe in as part of my core beliefs.  And along those lines, it's ok if those same alternative lifestyle living individuals disagree with my core beliefs, and they're not considered afraid of my core beliefs.  Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you're afraid of it.

His comments are based out of ignorance too not just fear. And who determines what an "alternative lifestyle" is? This type of thinking is dying out and the world will only get better because of it. We're coming into 2014, those living in the bronze age will keep getting left behind.

The people that didnt want interracial marriage, racial integration, ending of slavery, women voting, where are these "majorities" now? The same place that anti-gay marriage folk that base their beliefs on books written by man are headed: into oblivion. Those people kicked and screamed too and it didnt change a thing. It has taken a while, but the US is progressing at a faster rate. When the day comes that religious people are the minority, our nation will be at its greatest intellectually and socially.

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

stlrtruck wrote:

Clay Aikens former 'American Idol' winner, made some statements, the one the struck me the funniest is that he thinks Phil's comments are based out of fear

 If you don't agree with an alternative lifestyle then it makes you afraid.  That's amazing because I'm not afraid of the things I don't believe in as part of my core beliefs.  And along those lines, it's ok if those same alternative lifestyle living individuals disagree with my core beliefs, and they're not considered afraid of my core beliefs.  Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you're afraid of it.

His comments are based out of ignorance too not just fear. And who determines what an "alternative lifestyle" is? This type of thinking is dying out and the world will only get better because of it. We're coming into 2014, those living in the bronze age will keep getting left behind.

The people that didnt want interracial marriage, racial integration, ending of slavery, women voting, where are these "majorities" now? The same place that anti-gay marriage folk that base their beliefs on books written by man are headed: into oblivion. Those people kicked and screamed too and it didnt change a thing. It has taken a while, but the US is progressing at a faster rate. When the day comes that religious people are the minority, our nation will be at its greatest intellectually and socially.

How are they based on ignorance? Just because society expects Christians to drop their beliefs and begin to accept everything, doesn't mean Christians are ignorant.

Our society has already gotten to the point that religious people are the 'minority', and while you think it may bring about greater intellect and wider sociability, I believe you'll find a country morally bankrupt.

Now you can call that 'bronze age' thinking, but doesn't that show that you don't tolerate people who still hold on to those beliefs? Yet, you're stating they should 'move forward' and change their beliefs, and no longer believe the bible or what it states is to be accepted. Why? So as to not be left behind by the world's progress? I'd rather be left behind by this world, then left behind by the Lord above.

stlrtruck wrote:

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

stlrtruck wrote:

Clay Aikens former 'American Idol' winner, made some statements, the one the struck me the funniest is that he thinks Phil's comments are based out of fear

 If you don't agree with an alternative lifestyle then it makes you afraid.  That's amazing because I'm not afraid of the things I don't believe in as part of my core beliefs.  And along those lines, it's ok if those same alternative lifestyle living individuals disagree with my core beliefs, and they're not considered afraid of my core beliefs.  Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you're afraid of it.

His comments are based out of ignorance too not just fear. And who determines what an "alternative lifestyle" is? This type of thinking is dying out and the world will only get better because of it. We're coming into 2014, those living in the bronze age will keep getting left behind.

The people that didnt want interracial marriage, racial integration, ending of slavery, women voting, where are these "majorities" now? The same place that anti-gay marriage folk that base their beliefs on books written by man are headed: into oblivion. Those people kicked and screamed too and it didnt change a thing. It has taken a while, but the US is progressing at a faster rate. When the day comes that religious people are the minority, our nation will be at its greatest intellectually and socially.

How are they based on ignorance?  Just because society expects Christians to drop their beliefs and begin to accept everything, doesn't mean Christians are ignorant.

Our society has already gotten to the point that religious people are the 'minority', and while you think it may bring about greater intellect and wider sociability, I believe you'll find a country morally bankrupt.

Now you can call that 'bronze age' thinking, but doesn't that show that you don't tolerate people who still hold on to those beliefs?  Yet, you're stating they should 'move forward' and change their beliefs, and no longer believe the bible or what it states is to be accepted.  Why?  So as to not be left behind by the world's progress?  I'd rather be left behind by this world, then left behind by the Lord above.

I didnt say drop your beliefs, im telling u that by holding on them u will find yourself in the minority. And no, religious people are not yet the minority. As far as moral bankruptcy, thats your opinion. Man determines what is moral and what is not. As far you u being willing to be left behind, thats your decision.

We've advanced in this world not because of religion but in spite of it. Can u imagine mankind still holding on to "flat earth" opinions?
Religion gets the flack it does because its not enough to worship at home or church/synagogue/mosque, it has force its way into public schools and use public resources to spread itself. Religion is a private matter. If a child wants to pray at his or her desk, he or she can do so, but why should every child in the room be forced to pray? That is what many christians want, a christian theocracy where people are forced to submit against their will. Thats what the whole "theyve taken god out of school" sermon is all about. Thats bronze age thinking, ancient thinking, where a society is forced to submit to a religion against their will. U may think this is a conspiracy theory, but many christians want this. It makes them no better than the muslims they detest who actually HAVE theocracies in the middle east.
http://m.wapt.com/news/rankin-county-student-sues-over-religious-assemblies-at-school/-/17424988/22740226/-/llvh05/-/index.html

http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2013-11-mississippi-high-school-student-victorious-in-lawsui

Certainly this isnt a nation u want where religion is literally forced on students. Why should I be "tolerant" of that?

I have no problem if people don't want prayer in school, I completely understand that in this day in age, people 'don't want to hear about it'. I have no problem with people who want to put up a festivus pole at Christmas, or other kinds of celebrations. And I certainly want to force someone to pray.

And while I certainly believe that praying and honoring God would bring a healing to this nation, I'm not naive enough to believe that the mainstream would buy in to it. Matter of fact, I honestly believe that this country, and the world will embrace more liberal views, and the further detoriation of the world as a whole.

And while I don't think people should be forced to pray, Christians shouldn't be spewed across the media as homophobes because they list homosexuality as sin, it's the same as lying, adultry, fornication, gluttony, lust, and so-on & so-on. The problem is two fold. One, when Christians preach on sin, they get stuck on homosexuality and make it a war. It's not a war for Christians to fight, while it's one thing to talk about sexual immorality, one should make sure they include all aspects of it - not just homosexuality. The other problem, as I feel the case is here with Phil's comments, is that people only read/heard homosexuality and didn't listen to the whole context. IMO, it goes back to the old expression, that if you don't want the worse possible answer, then don't ask the question.

I don't hate homosexuals, nor am I scared of them. No more than I am scared of liars, fornicators, adulterers, gluttons, thiefs, etc. But if I'm asked my opinion on the lifestyle, I'm going to express my opinion. That doesn't make me a homophobe, it doesn't make me a gay-basher, and it certainly doesn't mean I want people to go and start fights with gays. As Phil stated, it's not my place to judge, but if you're asking, here's the answer.

stlrtruck wrote:

I have no problem if people don't want prayer in school, I completely understand that in this day in age, people 'don't want to hear about it'.  I have no problem with people who want to put up a festivus pole at Christmas, or other kinds of celebrations.  And I certainly want to force someone to pray.

And while I certainly believe that praying and honoring God would bring a healing to this nation, I'm not naive enough to believe that the mainstream would buy in to it.  Matter of fact, I honestly believe that this country, and the world will embrace more liberal views, and the further detoriation of the world as a whole.

And while I don't think people should be forced to pray, Christians shouldn't be spewed across the media as homophobes because they list homosexuality as sin, it's the same as lying, adultry, fornication, gluttony, lust, and so-on & so-on.  The problem is two fold.  One, when Christians preach on sin, they get stuck on homosexuality and make it a war.  It's not a war for Christians to fight, while it's one thing to talk about sexual immorality, one should make sure they include all aspects of it - not just homosexuality.  The other problem, as I feel the case is here with Phil's comments, is that people only read/heard homosexuality and didn't listen to the whole context.  IMO, it goes back to the old expression, that if you don't want the worse possible answer, then don't ask the question.

I don't hate homosexuals, nor am I scared of them. No more than I am scared of liars, fornicators, adulterers, gluttons, thiefs, etc.  But if I'm asked my opinion on the lifestyle, I'm going to express my opinion.  That doesn't make me a homophobe, it doesn't make me a gay-basher, and it certainly doesn't mean I want people to go and start fights with gays.  As Phil stated, it's not my place to judge, but if you're asking, here's the answer.

Liberalism is the reason why we're advanced this far. The "god did it" argument is no longer good enough. You're either moving forward, backward, and or stuck in neutral, fortunately most would rather move forward. Not just with religion, but with most aspects of society. Im sure Muslims in the middle east make the same arguments u do as far as society goes. At one time, people used the bible as justification for slavery, but, just as those ideals died out, so will those with anti-gay views.

As far as being homosexual, I dont think people, especially teens, go out of their way to hide their feelings or commit suicide because of a "choice". I mean, by some people's logic, they could always choose to "ungay" themselves which is silly. I for one am glad that societies are moving forward and not letting ancient writings dictate their beliefs. Well, most societies, middle east has some catching up to do.

I dont think u hate anyone, but it seems ancient beliefs drive your opinions. Many of those things you listed are choices, being gay is not one of them. I didnt choose to like girls, I just do. I couldnt begin to imagine what they must go through not to be hated for who they are.

Since you're lumping all those things as "sin" (again which man determines), how should they go about not being gay?

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

I dont think u hate anyone, but it seems ancient beliefs drive your opinions. Many of those things you listed are choices, being gay is not one of them. I didnt choose to like girls, I just do. I couldnt begin to imagine what they must go through not to be hated for who they are.

Since you're lumping all those things as "sin" (again which man determines), how should they go about not being gay?

Ancient beliefs don't drive my opinions. God's word combined with the life I use to live vs. the life I have now with God in it drive my opinions. And while many in today's society don't want to hear that what they're doing is a sin, I wish I could go back and talk to my younger self and avoid many of the 'worldly' pitfalls I fell through just trying to get through life. No, my life isn't easier just because I have a relationship with Christ. I also understand people will continue to do certain things until they come to a point in their life where they feel they should no longer do those things. I was once that way.

As for your question, I don't have an answer for you. I know that Christ died so that no-one shall perish. How people get to know him, and how He changes their life isn't my decision (and I'm thankful it's not). That's the beauty of having a relationship with Christ, it's a personal thing, not a religious thing.

stlrtruck wrote:

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

I dont think u hate anyone, but it seems ancient beliefs drive your opinions. Many of those things you listed are choices, being gay is not one of them. I didnt choose to like girls, I just do. I couldnt begin to imagine what they must go through not to be hated for who they are.

Since you're lumping all those things as "sin" (again which man determines), how should they go about not being gay?

As for your question, I don't have an answer for you.  I know that Christ died so that no-one shall perish.

but you've established that being gay is a sin, so certainly there is an answer to not being gay? Mentioning Jesus dying doesnt address this issue. If its so easy to label someone who is his or herself a "sinner" according to man's rules, then CERTAINLY there is an easy answer. Since many of these people have "prayed" and are still gay, that certainly isnt an answer. But certainly christianity has an answer.

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

stlrtruck wrote:

Steeltown beatdown wrote:

I dont think u hate anyone, but it seems ancient beliefs drive your opinions. Many of those things you listed are choices, being gay is not one of them. I didnt choose to like girls, I just do. I couldnt begin to imagine what they must go through not to be hated for who they are.

Since you're lumping all those things as "sin" (again which man determines), how should they go about not being gay?

As for your question, I don't have an answer for you.  I know that Christ died so that no-one shall perish.

but you've established that being gay is a sin, so certainly there is an answer to not being gay? Mentioning Jesus dying doesnt address this issue. If its so easy to label someone who is his or herself a "sinner" according to man's rules, then CERTAINLY there is an easy answer. Since many of these people have "prayed" and are still gay, that certainly isnt an answer. But certainly christianity has an answer.

Yes it is a sin. Just as much as any other sin, and people who have certain 'addictions' (not just alchohol or drugs), continue to pray yet they struggle too.

The only answer I have is Jesus, not Christianity, not religion, but a pure, open, honest, and true relationship with Jesus.

Many times, Christians get stuck on certain sins, take homosexuality for instance. Many pastors and/or churches and/or Christians slam homosexuals but they don't carry the love of Christ in their message and in get in the way of Christ's love for everyone. It is something I've learned along the way. Not to judge the sinner, but instead embrace them where they are, just as Christ did me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not perfect and I certainly didn't change overnight. That in itself is another misnomer, people think that once someone receives Christ they will change overnight -it doesn't happen that way.

Again, imo, there are two problems in this situation:

1. Those who are in the sin, in this case homosexuality, get all uptight when Christians mention the specific sin, and then they feel judged and hated on. In certain cases, the media takes over and makes it out to be something bigger than it actually is or they take the statements out of context (and yes and I believe Phil's words were taken out of context of their scriptural reference).

2. Christians slam one specific sin and don't treat the other sins as equally damaging to life as the one they want to hammer out. Jesus doesn't address homosexuality, but he does address sexual immorality, which also includes fornication and adultery. Just as with the woman who was caught in an adultress act, it was within the laws of the Old Testament for her to be stoned to death, but when she was brought to Jesus, he did not judge her, instead he showed her love and compassion. Does that mean she didn't sin? No. It means that he showed her love, but still hates the sin, as he spoke to her and said, "Go and sin no more." Christians tend to forget this and instead hammer on the sinner, not the sin.

I believe Phil's comments were on the sin, not the sinners.