Ohio Chatter DEV

iclfan2

Yep, them dang conservatives clinging to their religion and guns again...

dlazz

This thread is certainly serious business.

SportsAndLady

dlazz;1555622 wrote:This thread is certainly serious business.

What TV shows do you watch?

If you say Mike & Molly, I know how much you weigh.

Heretic

pmoney25;1555607 wrote:I love the sanctity of marriage argument when the same book people use to condemn
homosexuality has countless examples of Polygamy.

Why couldn't that part of the old testament be used today?

pmoney25;1555619 wrote:Not too mention the same people who are going crazy over this were the same ones smashing Dixie Chick records ten years ago for protesting the war.

Well, expecting these people to be intelligent and non-hypocritical in their feelings would be too much to ask...

dlazz

SportsAndLady;1555627 wrote:What TV shows do you watch?

I very rarely watch TV at all.

SportsAndLady

dlazz;1555638 wrote:I very rarely watch TV at all.

Hmm that's a tricky one.

I'm guessing you drive a Hyundai and have a cat

Heretic

SportsAndLady;1555640 wrote:Hmm that's a tricky one.

I'm guessing you drive a Hyundai and have a cat

Creepy recluse. Can't make emotional attachments to others. Um, breath smells like fish.

Sounds about right.

Bio-Hazzzzard

SportsAndLady;1555613 wrote:It's literally mind numbing to me that people, in 2013, can still believe that it is "wrong" or a "sin" to be a homosexual.

Why should the year of 2013 change a persons beliefs? Why should a human being balk at what they believe in simply to passify this modern age? I still believe in the same things I did in in past years, sin or no sin that shouldn't change based on a year in time.

ptown_trojans_1

Chalk me up in the camp that does not give a shit.
Never saw the show and couldn't care less what one of the guys said.

Dude from a tv show quotes the Bible and belief and gets grief, wooo....(sarcasm)
Let me go back to caring about more important issues.

SportsAndLady

Bio-Hazzzzard;1555643 wrote:Why should the year of 2013 change a persons beliefs? Why should a human being balk at what they believe in simply to passify this modern age? I still believe in the same things I did in in past years, sin or no sin that shouldn't change based on a year in time.

With all the "science" out there...all the knowledge...all the information readily available to people...to think because a chick is banging a chick and not a guy is a "sin" is just incomprehensible.

I'm not saying 'don't be religious' I consider myself a catholic. But I don't believe that a) homosexuality is wrong and b) there's no such thing as different levels of sin. Just because you believe in a religion doesn't mean you have to believe in everything that religion's 5,000 year old book says.

bases_loaded

Science and religion disagree with homos. That is all

Bio-Hazzzzard

SportsAndLady;1555646 wrote:With all the "science" out there...all the knowledge...all the information readily available to people...to think because a chick is banging a chick and not a guy is a "sin" is just incomprehensible.

I'm not saying 'don't be religious' I consider myself a catholic. But I don't believe that a) homosexuality is wrong and b) there's no such thing as different levels of sin. Just because you believe in a religion doesn't mean you have to believe in everything that religion's 5,000 year old book says.

I see what you are saying and it makes sense. I Have no issues with accepting anyone for who they are or what they believe in, that doesn't mean that I have to be forced to agree with their lifestyle or beliefs.

jmog

I have a few things to say...

1. For those who keep chirping on "he compared homosexuality to beastiality", come on, do a little research. He was quoting/paraphrasing 1 Corinthians Chaper 6, Verses 6-11 ([SUP]9 [/SUP]Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, [SUP]10 [/SUP]or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. [SUP]11 [/SUP]Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.)

He was not saying they were the "same" or saying that one leads to another, he was saying that in his opinion, and in the Bible's, they (along with all the other things he lists, not just those two) are sin. That's it, period.

2. He said in his opinion wanting another man's anus is illogical (to him). Please explain where that is "offensive" and "anti-gay" and makes him a bigot. If someone can seriously explain that without going on a Bible bashing rant, I would love to hear it.

3. Most of you are completely ignoring the rest of the article. Let me quote it for you. "We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

He is saying he has never treated anyone (read homosexual) any different, he loves them, just happens to think what they are doing is wrong.

4. Does A/E have a right to fire him? Absolutely, they can fire whomever they want.

5. Is Sarah Palin and others idiots for saying they are violating his First Amendment rights by firing him? Absolutely. No one is arresting or suing him for what his thoughts are, so his First Amendment rights were not violated. Just because one has the right to say/believe something doesn't mean there are zero repurcussions. One has to know in today's PC world, that any possible discussion about homosexuality that isn't all about 100% support for the LGBT community will have repurcussions (as in someone will get WAY overly offended...I was going to use butt hurt but figured that was too easy).

6. Lastly, I want to know where GLAAD was when Alec Baldwin called a homosexual photographer a "queen"? No backlash from them with him, just on the guy that says he believes homosexuality is a sin and to him, liking men's anus' is illogical. I would say the Baldwin incident is worse than what Phil had to say, but GLAAD didn't lash out at Mr. Baldwin did they?

jmog

Heretic;1555633 wrote:Well, expecting these people to be intelligent and non-hypocritical in their feelings would be too much to ask...

You mean like the hypocrits at GLAAD that ignored Alec Baldwin's homophobic slur to a homosexual man, but jumped all over Phil from Duck Dynasty about saying he believed homosexuality was a sin and he didn't understand how a homosexual could like a man's anus over a vagina?

jmog

SportsAndLady;1555646 wrote:With all the "science" out there...all the knowledge...all the information readily available to people...to think because a chick is banging a chick and not a guy is a "sin" is just incomprehensible.

I'm not saying 'don't be religious' I consider myself a catholic. But I don't believe that a) homosexuality is wrong and b) there's no such thing as different levels of sin. Just because you believe in a religion doesn't mean you have to believe in everything that religion's 5,000 year old book says.

1. You haven't quite yet explained why it's incomprehensible for someone to believe homsexuality is a sin.
2. I agree with you, and so does the Bible, that there's no such thing as different levels of sin. Varying levels of 'sin' is a man made concept. The Bible equates all sin equally, looking at a woman that is not you wife lustfully is just as bad as screwing a dude's anus. Sorry guys, it's true

.

isadore

jmog;1555654 wrote:I have a few things to say...

1. For those who keep chirping on "he compared homosexuality to beastiality", come on, do a little research. He was quoting/paraphrasing 1 Corinthians Chaper 6, Verses 6-11 ([SUP]9 [/SUP]Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, [SUP]10 [/SUP]or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. [SUP]11 [/SUP]Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.)

He was not saying they were the "same" or saying that one leads to another, he was saying that in his opinion, and in the Bible's, they (along with all the other things he lists, not just those two) are sin. That's it, period.

2. He said in his opinion wanting another man's anus is illogical (to him). Please explain where that is "offensive" and "anti-gay" and makes him a bigot. If someone can seriously explain that without going on a Bible bashing rant, I would love to hear it.

3. Most of you are completely ignoring the rest of the article. Let me quote it for you. "We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

He is saying he has never treated anyone (read homosexual) any different, he loves them, just happens to think what they are doing is wrong.

4. Does A/E have a right to fire him? Absolutely, they can fire whomever they want.

5. Is Sarah Palin and others idiots for saying they are violating his First Amendment rights by firing him? Absolutely. No one is arresting or suing him for what his thoughts are, so his First Amendment rights were not violated. Just because one has the right to say/believe something doesn't mean there are zero repurcussions. One has to know in today's PC world, that any possible discussion about homosexuality that isn't all about 100% support for the LGBT community will have repurcussions (as in someone will get WAY overly offended...I was going to use butt hurt but figured that was too easy).

6. Lastly, I want to know where GLAAD was when Alec Baldwin called a homosexual photographer a "queen"? No backlash from them with him, just on the guy that says he believes homosexuality is a sin and to him, liking men's anus' is illogical. I would say the Baldwin incident is worse than what Phil had to say, but GLAAD didn't lash out at Mr. Baldwin did they?

Gosh a ruddies You do research, really
But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-6/
　
　
But nothing about bestiality
, I guess only bigots see it there.
Oh on Mr. Baldwin
‘
Alec Baldwin on MSNBC Cancellation: GLAAD Spokesman and Andrew Sullivan ‘Killed’ His Show”
http://www.thewrap.com/alec-baldwin-msnbc-show-glaad-gay-slur-andrew-sullivan

sportchampps

His comments have got you guys to talk 13 pages about Duck Dynasty I predict record ratings are to come

jmog

isadore;1555660 wrote:Gosh a ruddies You do research, really
But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8
Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-6/
　
　
But nothing about bestiality
, I guess only bigots see it there.
Oh on Mr. Baldwin
‘
Alec Baldwin on MSNBC Cancellation: GLAAD Spokesman and Andrew Sullivan ‘Killed’ His Show”
http://www.thewrap.com/alec-baldwin-msnbc-show-glaad-gay-slur-andrew-sullivan

Did you see the part where I said he was paraphrasing? I did not say he directly quoted. Sorry, but all the beastiality is a sin parts of the Bible is in the OT.

Also, your link said that Baldwin thought that GLAAD ended his show while GLAAD spokesmen said they did not. Try again.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/18/glaad-pounces-duck-dynasty-not-baldwin

http://twitchy.com/2013/12/18/selective-outrage-glaad-slams-phil-robertson-after-letting-alec-baldwin-slide/

isadore

jmog;1555667 wrote:Did you see the part where I said he was paraphrasing? I did not say he directly quoted. Sorry, but all the beastiality is a sin parts of the Bible is in the OT.

Also, your link said that Baldwin thought that GLAAD ended his show while GLAAD spokesmen said they did not. Try again.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/18/glaad-pounces-duck-dynasty-not-baldwin

http://twitchy.com/2013/12/18/selective-outrage-glaad-slams-phil-robertson-after-letting-alec-baldwin-slide/

Paraphrase “
: to restate something using other words.”
Gosh a ruddies when you move from talking critically about various human interaction, to sex outside our species that is not restating using other words.
Breitbart, lol. And Michelle Malkins “Twitchy” now there is quality non biased reporting.
Guess what his show got cancelled because of his anti gay comments. Phils homophobic and RACIST ravings only got him put on hiatus.

jmog

isadore;1555671 wrote:Paraphrase “
: to restate something using other words.”
Gosh a ruddies when you move from talking critically about various human interaction, to sex outside our species that is not restating using other words.
Breitbart, lol. And Michelle Malkins “Twitchy” now there is quality non biased reporting.
Guess what his show got cancelled because of his anti gay comments. Phils homophobic and RACIST ravings only got him put on hiatus.

Please, quote exactly what part of Phil's statements were "homophobic".

isadore

jmog;1555676 wrote:Please, quote exactly what part of Phil's statements were "homophobic".

Gosh a ruddies
Lets see hating them so much he puts gays on the same level as crimials= slanderers, swindlers and practitioners of bestiality. A fearful hater if there ever was one.
Did I miss something or did you fail to defend Phil against the racist claim. Just because he raved on happy blacks were in the segregated Jim Crow South. What every Southern bigot claimed.
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

phobic-"having an intense fear or dislike of something."

gut

I bet Phil is extremely pleased with all the national attention his comments have received.

se-alum

jmog;1555656 wrote:1. You haven't quite yet explained why it's incomprehensible for someone to believe homsexuality is a sin.
2. I agree with you, and so does the Bible, that there's no such thing as different levels of sin. Varying levels of 'sin' is a man made concept. The Bible equates all sin equally, looking at a woman that is not you wife lustfully is just as bad as screwing a dude's anus. Sorry guys, it's true .

Actually the bible does mention varying levels of sin. The concept of a "sin is a sin" comes from the thought that every sin separates you from God, so in that respect "a sin is a sin" is true. However, there is reference to varying levels of punishment, which would insinuate that not all sin is equal. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered an eternal sin.

jmog

isadore;1555682 wrote:Gosh a ruddies
Lets see hating them so much he puts gays on the same level as crimials= slanderers, swindlers and practitioners of bestiality. A fearful hater if there ever was one.
Did I miss something or did you fail to defend Phil against the racist claim. Just because he raved on happy blacks were in the segregated Jim Crow South. What every Southern bigot claimed.
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

phobic-"having an intense fear or dislike of something."

1. He most certainly did not put homosexuals on the same level as criminals. He was asked to make a list of what he thought was sin, and he gave a list, period. The exact question asked was "What do you believe is sinful?" To which he replied with the list you just said, he gave a LIST, did not say one was better or worse than the other.

2. I didn't say one thing or another about the "racist" comments.

jmog

se-alum;1555684 wrote:Actually the bible does mention varying levels of sin. The concept of a "sin is a sin" comes from the thought that every sin separates you from God, so in that respect "a sin is a sin" is true. However, there is reference to varying levels of punishment, which would insinuate that not all sin is equal. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is considered an eternal sin.

You are referencing the historical Jewish laws and their levels of punishment, not God's moral laws. Yes, Leviticus (the main book that lists the old Jewish laws) gives varying punishments (some freaking harsh), but that is a man's set of laws just like

For Isadore:
Phil actually said he loved everyone, including homosexuals, if you read the whole article. So, please show again where he "hates" homosexuals?

Archive

Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?