Wrong. Pre- is the time being asked about. Nothing more.
He was speaking of his personal experience of that time. He made no comparison.
Your assertions are nothing more than the product of biased convoluted thoughts.
Wrong. He made no comparison. He answered a question of a specific.
It was only by the grace of cruel fate that you are attracted to someone your book deems acceptable. How would you like it if your book insisted that heterosexual relations were sinful and only gay sex was holy? Would you just roll with it? "Piece of cake. Just do as instructed by God's word"? Or would you be disgusted by the options and have sex with women on the down-low?
It's quite nice to be in synch with the majority. Too bad so few people understand how fortunate they are.
You're just wrong on that. It's clear for any unbiased eye to see.
Oh, btw, it's not about what he heard. He may have closed his ears with his mind. It's about the reality if the time.
He was 8 years old. How much does an 8 year old understand over and beyond what he sees.
How can you say he is wrong about the blues when you don't know what he was talking about?
I actually meant to write "these people".Given the choice between sex with a man and celibacy the choice would be pretty easy. But then if I thought that there was absolutely nothing wrong with having sex with a man as a man then the choice of whether or not to be Christian would be pretty easy as well. Being Christian is voluntary.
I'm not telling a gay person to be straight. Your argument falls apart from there.
If I was very determined in my belief that married, lifetime-monogamous heterosexual sex was good and not a sin then I would not ascribe to a religion that said otherwise. If I believed that the religion that said that married, lifetime-monogamous heterosexual sex was a sin was the righteous path set forth by God then I would battle my own personal desires in order to try and walk the righteous path.
In other words, I'd be about the same but fighting different urges.
You seriously doubt a great many things you are in fact wholly ignorant about, I find. I also really hope that is a typo and you really meant to type "their people" because that would be hilarious.
He was 8 years old. How much does an 8 year old understand over and beyond what he sees.
How can you say he is wrong about the blues when you don't know what he was talking about?
Boo makes a lot up on the fly, then when called on it, he either tries to say that he didn't say what he said, or he plays stupid games of semantics to deflect that can last for literally pages.
For instance, the part of the faux outrage, of Phil's comments, dealing with "pre/post entitlement" is pure bunk. Phil clearly starts his answer on that by restating the absurd trick question by the dishonest reporter Magary. Phil clearly says, "YOU SAY" so the rest can only be construed as a mocking overstatement. But, libs just want to conflate, smear, and attack anyone with Christian faith.
See calamity and her response to me and others. She tried to pass off to me that she studies the bible, while addressing you she refers to it as "your book"... It is all so dishonest.
First of all I don't have a book and what you posted has nothing to do with what I posted.
I was talking about you purposely not understanding what Phil Robertson said, but rather what you think he said.
There seems to be a huge gap there, but you don't want to see it. That is your choice.
I actually meant to write "these people".
I get your point. If you want to be gay, you can't be "Christian". I'm cool with you all drawing a line with who can join your club. Btw, that's why I reject the American Christian Movement. IMO, you all are not Christ-like.
Someone can be gay and be a Christian. You just conveniently ignore about 95% of what Christians actually say in order to fit them into your caricature. It's really a prerequisite as a Christian to be a sinner. If you don't believe you are a sinner then Christianity really has nothing for you.
Gays can be Christians. Wow. Cool.Someone can be gay and be a Christian. You just conveniently ignore about 95% of what Christians actually say in order to fit them into your caricature. It's really a prerequisite as a Christian to be a sinner. If you don't believe you are a sinner then Christianity really has nothing for you.
There are a couple more gems in that link up there which are even better. Glad too see you Christians hitching your wagon to such a righteous SOB. Suh-weet.A good woman is “hard to find. Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry ‘em. Look, you wait till they get to be about 20 years old, they only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket. You gotta marry these girls when they’re 15 or 16, they’ll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that, of course.” — Speaking at Sportsmen’s Ministry in Georgia in 2009.
LA Times
Gays can be Christians. Wow. Cool.
So, what's Phil whining about?
Hey...Are Cristians cool with marrying off daughters at 15 and 16? Phil sure is.
There are a couple more gems in that link up there which are even better. Glad too see you Christians hitching your wagon to such a righteous SOB. Suh-weet.
Condemning the actions of consenting adults is petty, made even worse when invoking the name of God.
I've never seen the show, but here's my perspective.
A&E are idiots. They've painted themselves in to a corner.
Never even seen the show, but ONE look at that man and I can tell you he doesn't give a **** what anyone thinks of him. He's an old ass man, and he's gonna say what he wants to say. He's not apologizing for anything.
I don't think he gives a damn if they ever do a show again, one way or the other.
So A&E painted themselves in to a corner. Either they cancel the show and give up all that revenue, or they reinstate him with their tail between their legs, and now they've pissed off all the gays and libs.
A&E.... amateur hour. LULZ.
You should pay better attention to what was said.Which felt with a time period. He added pre-welfare, which is before now, which is in all ways a comparison. You are factually incorrect.
The mistake here in our liberals of the forum's thinking is the same mistake the biased author of the article makes, and puts IN his article....From the GQ article on the opening page the author starts off painting a picture of a backwoods redneck, that he obviously doesn't understand, and in fact looks down on for his way of life....He starts the article saying this....
"How in the world did a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters become the biggest TV stars in America?"
squirrel eating? bible thumping?
Both of these descriptors are used to paint a negative picture of rural Americans, or people of faith. Then in the next sentence of the article Magary extends his confused slur to the general viewership of the show by describing those who watch as:
"And what will they do now that they have 14 million fervent disciples?"
"fervent disciples" is used to describe them IMO, to paint the picture of extremists could be the only people tuning in.
It's insulting to say the least, but don't let our feathers get ruffled, we don't have that right according to leftists that distort, dissemble, and twist his words in the article, all for the sake of manufacturing a contrived controversy.
In the opening plate setting load of Bull that this Magary sets up is this one....
"Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:
“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? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Perhaps we’ll be needing that seat belt after all."
Is this guy for real? Oh, so witty...."there's no stopping them" He's the goddamn interviewer for Christ sake, he set him up to hear what Robertson had to say, and knew what he would say on this, then the "Perhaps we'll be needing that seat belt..." comment is just crap, what a tool.
As for what Phil said there, he only said that HE prefers women....But in Magary's mind that is wrong, and can't understand obviously how someone could be heterosexual. He's an idiot.
Then just the next paragraph down he set's Phil up to be a southern bigot as well by asking him what he thought of living in the south during the civil rights era....But he doesn't show the question/answer as an honest reporter would do, instead, he has his answer, and with editorial licence chop's it up to say, or imply what HE (Magary) wants to get across about Phil:
"Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
This comment was inserted in the middle of describing how Phil went to LouTech, and dropped out giving his QB spot to Terry Bradshaw...So, what it's relevance was to begin with is not clear, unless you know that the article was a hit piece aimed at painting this guy as some sort of Racist/Homophobe/Redneck.
It is Magary who inserted the "Pre civil rights" tag to the comment, NOT Phil. And Phil makes it clear that his experience was what HE saw with his own eyes, not the overall movement, and treatment of the times....
All this is, are liberals using this article designed to deliver a manufactured outrage into the lap of those special interest groups like GLAAD, and HRC that they knew would get all flustered over the mere mention that someone is heterosexual, instead of gay, and they succeeded.
How dumb that liberals can't read in context, or look at the interview with fairness in what is quote, and what is added to stir them up....IOW, a real lack of critical thinking on their part...
Gays can be Christians. Wow. Cool.
So, what's Phil whining about?
Hey...Are Cristians cool with marrying off daughters at 15 and 16? Phil sure is.
There are a couple more gems in that link up there which are even better. Glad too see you Christians hitching your wagon to such a righteous SOB. Suh-weet.
Somebody can also be a serial killer and be a Christian.
I'm glad you're at least being honest about your opinion of "us Christians."
Please show me where I condemned anything other than you inability to understand what was said.
1. In one of these "Phil Threads", I've been pretty busy arguing another "dog whistle" remark of his with Excon. You know, the one where Blacks were happier before they had a right to vote and drink from public water fountains.1. Phil listed a litany of biblical sins in that interview, one of them happened to be the progressive dog whistle of the moment.
2. So if I agree with Robertson on one thing you think that means I have to agree with Robertson on all things? Age of consent in the US is predominantly 16 years of age (30 states), which is the age Phil married Miss Kay, so I suppose it's preferable that they are married, at least. Having sex at 16 is more objectionable to me than the getting married at 16, though, by a wide margin.
LAT article said:"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil." -- Speaking at the 2010 Wild Game Supper in Pottstown, Pa.
You know, the one where Blacks were happier before they had a right to vote and drink from public water fountains.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?