Phil Robertson quotes on Gay’s and Lesbian’s

Well I have been following the Phil Robertson mess until I have to speak my mind on it.  First and foremost I believe the guy was asked a question and he gave his answer.  The answer he gave was a quote in scripture.  This is his belief and his faith which anyone reading the bible on a daily basis and going to church believes in.  They are to uphold the contents of the bible as true words of God.

For you to ridicule him and to suspend him because of his religious belief’s is wrong.   I think it’s against the law even; isn’t it?  I don’t think you can discriminate against someone who works for you because of their religious beliefs.  Two why would a magazine knowing this is a man of God ask him a question like this.  It was a loaded question and the man had to quote the bible to you or he would not be true to his faith.  He would be risking his relationship with God in order to say anything else.

The magazine not only set Phil Robertson up but wanted to start trouble by stirring the pot.  I think a boycott of this magazine is in order.  I believe the magazine used Phil to sell more magazines and will not give mention to their name for that reason. How could you deliberately cause an incident such as this to deliberately hurt not only Phil Robertson but the gay and lesbian population.

It is not right what you did.  I believe that God is the only person who can say who is going to heaven or hell.  God knows a person’s heart and if it is pure or not.  God is not looking for perfection He is God. He knows that perfection isn’t going to be found in man.  Phil Robertson is standing on the word of God as set forth in the Old Testament.  He didn’t condemn them himself he quoted the scripture which included many other types of behaviors such as the drunkard and the sexually immoral so  stop twisting Phil’s word’s and intent.

Some people believe the Old Testament passed away with Jesus  even though Jesus states that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it I can’t interpret that.  He could have meant several things by that comment. I am not going to speculate because it is not my problem. I do what I think is right in my walk with God all others I let God sort it out.  That is His job after all not mine.  He is to judge those that shall enter into heaven.

I believe that Phil Robertson answered the question by telling this magazine what it says in the bible as if to say it is not up to him (Phil Robertson) to say one way or the other about the issue on gay’s because the bible says this to be so.

Again I am going to put it back on the magazine that published this garbage and tell them you used poor judgment and bad taste in asking the question to start with.  There is no need to make the gay population feel bad and no need to start trouble for Phil Robertson when you initiated this little pot stirring problem.

You make me sick all of you who could be so cruel to print this.  You weren’t exposing Phil for anything that people can’t figure out for themselves he is a Bible Believing Southern Man.  You just wanted to stir up trouble; unnecessary evil hurtful trouble.  I hope one day you reap what you sowed fifty times over.  That day will come sure as I am typing this; that day will come.

Phil get a lawyer I don’t think they can fire you for your religious beliefs.  You weren’t stating them while on the job were you?


11 thoughts on “Phil Robertson quotes on Gay’s and Lesbian’s

  1. First off, when an article is shown to a senior copy editor it is filtered for words or phrases or any other content that could cause a controversy. Magazine publishers and editors go to great lengths to insure their content will not insult or degrade anyone. As a writer, book author and opinion writer I was shocked to see that Phil Robertson’s words were allowed to go to print without being edited out. In a professional sense, that was very unprofessional and what can only be interpreted as intentional.

    When a writer or a reporter interviews a subject on a controversial matter they have a responsibility as a professional to do the same. That comes under journalism’s code of ethics. Surely the writer knew that but submitted his piece knowing well that the possibility existed that the offensive material could possibly be removed.

    It wasn’t. Once again the question is why? Also, why did he not edit out that material himself?

    I’m sure if the shoe was on the other foot (to use a cliche) the liberal and LGBT community would have nothing to say. Where were they when MSNBC Bashir said he wished someone would “shit in Sara Palin’s mouth?” They were eerily quiet then and amusingly all deaf.

    There seems to be a double-standard here when morals and respect for others are played out in the media. The fact that A&E chose to run Duck Dynasty marathons in the middle of the storm, only proves that they intentionally played one side against the other for profits.

    What else would you call it?

    • You are exactly right it was intentional. I don’t know why but there was no reason for it other than to be a pot stirrer for publicity. I don’t think Phil is running for President is he? So who cares what his views are on those subjects? What they did when they let him go was illegal. You can’t be fired for your religious beliefs. I am glad Phil won the battle.

      Why even ask those questions? It was a set up from the beginning. Any intelligent person is going to know the answer a Christian is going to give on those topics before you even ask. It is going to be a scripture verse and what God says about it.

  2. Perhaps you could point us to the scripture that weighs in on the relative merits of vaginas or the virtues of segregation? Alternatively, you could deal with the fact that Phil’s position is NOT simply a reflection of Biblical Christianity, and stop using faith as a shield for prejudice.

    • In that respect he was not condemning anyone but stating his preference. His faith is not a shield for prejudice. He said in the article he was not always standing on the Word and for years was on the opposite side of the faith he has today. If you read the whole article instead of just taking bits and pieces they chose to highlight for magazine sales you will see it for what it is. Propaganda to sell a magazine. Virtues of segregation was not what he implied but that he worked right alongside of them in the field. He was clearly saying he was treated no different and that was all. Don’t draw your conclusion based on what they say is “Phil’s intent” but read the article then make up your own mind. I read it and they pumped out garbage instead. Nothing like they say at all.

      • I have read the article, whereas I wonder if you’ve even read my single paragraph, or for that matter your own comments. You said his claims were Biblical; they were not. You also blame the magazine for setting him up, and now for highlighting certain things. That’s pathetic. And NONE of the points you now make change anything; they simply add on a narrative that you prefer. Your preference is little other than deceit.

      • I don’t think that I was insulting you in my reply and wonder why you choose to insult me. I can have a debate with someone without insulting their viewpoints. I being a Christian understand the call for Phil to direct the answers to the bible. I am sorry that you feel the need to treat people this way by calling my viewpoints pathetic and deceitful. The things Phil said were that he preferred a woman over a man and he then went on to backup his views based upon the bible. I understand your points but if you ever walked in a Christians shoes you don’t understand what our faith dictates us to do. We believe what the bible says as true so I guess you could say that makes us have views against certain behaviors you are correct in this but we don’t hate or turn away those people at least I don’t.

        It is our job as Christians to accept them love them and let them try to find their spiritual path. If you read my narrative my viewpoints are that if you have a relationship with Christ you are fine. That is all that matters. He is the only judge we are not judges. The magazine knew Phil’s stand would be biblical and how he would have to respond based upon his faith so in this respect they set him up and twisted his words in the media. Once I read the article it was not at all what they made it out to be. Why ask a question to some that is going to hurt someone else’s feelings when you plan to print it. They acted like they had exposed him for his hate of gays when in fact that is not at all what it was. So with this said please don’t answer me anymore if you find it necessary to insult me. I won’t answer and I won’t approve your comment it will be for naught.

      • The point is that you are engaging in highly deceitful behavior. If these rationalizations seem plausible to you, then I suppose there is little left to be done about it. You may call your defense of ignorance and bigotry Christianity. No-one can stop you from doing that, but your use of that label too is merely a deception.

      • No I am not I am not defending bigotry by hiding behind Christianity. Look I can’t say what is truly in Phil’s head but I could see how he was called to stand on what the bible said. If you are thinking that he truly doesn’t like gays or blacks and is hiding behind Christianity I can’t say that to be true or false. I am saying the way I interpreted the article and all that he said. This is what the Southern Baptist are about what is in the bible. They don’t stray from it at all. Is this blind faith? Maybe so. It is what every Southern Baptist preacher teaches their congregation. Been there done that. I know that God wants a relationship with us all. What Phil said is true about those who exhibit certain behavior will not see heaven but their are many circumstances that change that sentence in the bible such as if the person chooses to have a relationship with Christ. Then you have nothing to fear from that sentence. Did the GQ magazine have time to go into all that? What Phil should have done was bow out of that question but as a public figure he felt he had to uphold his Christian faith and not be afraid to speak straight forward. In the end it is all up to God, not Phil not me or you. I completely understand both sides of the coin but so much was left out of that one bible verse it caused drama instead of peace which is not what Christianity is about. I hope he has learned his lesson as well as the magazine. Why hurt people’s feelings on purpose? I just don’t get it.

      • It’s my opinion of what I read. How can you call my opinion “patently false?” Ok then just trying to get you to see where the other guy is coming from. I said I saw both sides buddy. It is not that big a deal.

  3. Pingback: Charlie Sheen’s rants on Phil Robertson | TamekoTheArtist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s