Header Image (book)


Thursday, January 16, 2014

Was Phil Wrong?

by Sam Huntington

The Epistle to the Romans (often shortened to Romans) is the sixth book in the New Testament; it was composed to the Apostle Paul to explain that salvation is offered through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Romans is considered to be the most important theological legacy. After Paul’s prologue, he gets immediately down to business. “18. The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress truth by their wickedness.

What was Phil Robertson doing but exposing the wickedness of people, whose raised voices sought to silence the truth of their own wickedness?

“26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

So was Phil wrong?

The outraged voices don’t matter. Although most of us are tired of watching sexual deviants strut around and listening to them boast of their lewd behavior, most of us do not care what adults do in the privacy of their own homes. God loves the sinner and wants him or her to forsake wickedness and move closer to Him. We do the sinner no favors by allowing them to silence our objection to immorality. If these lowlifes are offended by Phil Robertson’s point of view —tough.


  1. What disturbs me is the breakdown of the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' standard.

    Robertson's comments in no way can be construed as calling for violence, or even discrimination, against homosexuals.

    What's going on here is a placing beyond the pale certain classes of inconvenient speech so dogmatic leftists don't have to form opinions and argue their intellectually-squishy positions.

  2. Phil was not wrong. It also turns out that Phil is not the bozo that the left would like for us to believe. One of these days the leftist retards and the radical fairies will begin to understand that "shouting us down" isn't working. If anything at all, it only pisses us off.

    1. Pissing you off is ample reward.

      You lost the so called culture war.
      Live with it.

    2. For the record, the above comment by Ducky is an example of intellectually-squishy.

    3. With all due respect, Sam, Canardo isn't "squishy," he's just abominably rude, unfailingly abrasive, and profoundly disrespectful to those who hold opinions different from his in matters political, religious and philosophical. In this regard he's much like most others running loose in the blogosphere. We who are right of center notice Ducky's rudeness more than our own, because he makes a point of sticking out like a sore thumb very deliberately in conservative venues.

      To use his own words he delights in "cheesing off" the right wing. It's hard to believe anyone could honestly hold the opinions he professes to have, but he's certainly not alone. Apparently, more than half the country has Communist sympathies, though I doubt they realize it, poor dupes that they are.

  3. Ellie Rosenfield said

    Why this particular topic needs to be discussed at all I can't understand. If you don't care what people do in private, why do you join all the foolish people who want to yack on about it in public? The less it's discussed the less people will either be made curious enough to want to try it, or angry enough to want to deliberately hurt people who look or sound "gay." Do you want that?

    On the other side of it, if you really believe that the first amendment should apply to all citizens equally, who could you even dream of wanting suppress the activists who see themselves as educating the ignorant public?

    Being anti-gay doesn't make you a Christian. Isn't the religion supposed to be a more positive thing than that? Angry, cold-hearted opinions like the ones you've shared here do nothing to attract skeptics to the Christian religion or the conservative movement. Whether you like it or not most of the civilized world has moved away from these old taboos. Homosexuality is not really different from any other kind of sex. If it's enjoyed responsibly and privately between consenting adults in a way that's mutually satisfying, what could be so horrible about it? The same is true for so-called 'normal' sex, which can have far worse consequences when used carelessly or promiscuously than the other kind. Making babies when you don't want them, and are not prepared to take care of them should be considered a crime frankly.

    I've read St. Paul. His well known passage on charity is beautiful. Only fools would try to argue against it, but in other areas I bel8eve he was way off base. I think he had problems with sex in general, and I don't think he got those problems from associating with Jesus, who had little or nothing to say about se at all.

    Just because someone wrote negatively about sex doesn't mean that sex is immoral. The attempt to control other people through intimidation is much more immoral, and I know I'm not alone in that opinion.

    1. Jesus was anti-adultery. Read some more.

      You should also recall that Robertson made his statements after being asked by a leftwing provocateur of a pop culture magazine.

      I do share your wish that we would stop talking about all this stuff. I long for the pre TMI days when private stuff stayed private.

    2. Liar.

      You long for the days when people who offend your personal sense of morality were closeted.
      Pure and simple.

      Well, those days are gone and they ain't coming back no matter how difficult a time Sam has with gays living their lives in the open.

    3. You are an amazing piece of work, Ducky. As we already know how irrational you are, there is no reason for you to go out of your way to demonstrate it on a daily basis. My recommendation would be to cut back to no more than once a month, but then, I’m not a certified therapist. As for your deviance, we simply don’t care whether you fondle men in public restrooms.

      Feel better now?

    4. I'm a liar? You leveled the charge, so prove it.

      I have probably over 100,000 words out in the blogisphere, so you have ample material.

      Put up or shut up.

    5. Thought so...

      Another case of the leftwing propagandist duck quacking out his ass.

    6. I believe the topic does need to be discussed, particularly by Christians. Homosexuality as per definition in the Bible, Old and New Testament, is sin. Of course one can ask why and argue or be indifferent, but it is written there and it won't go away. There are many other behaviors defined as sin of course. The reason God put it into His Word is to show us where we are off track, violating the laws of life and the universe, excluding us from access to heaven. We can either accept that or reject it. Was the original sin - eating that apple or whatever is was - so bad? No, but it was direct disobedience to God's Word ("don't eat from that tree"). So if we are Christians, and that means, we also had to face our personals sins and were no better than anyone else, but realized that Christ died for us precisely because of our dilemma, then we MUST tell the truth to others, even if they don't like to hear it or are of the opposite opinion. That is not an "angry, cold-hearted opinion" but rather the opposite, a loving opinion to save people from getting lost eternally! Does it affect my relationship to Jesus whether someone I talk to is a homosexual or an adulterer or a whatever? No, of course not. He may be even an Atheist or a Satanist and insult my God with the lewdest words. But I still have to tell him the truth and if I hear tomorrow that he died the same day I had talked to him (this has happened to me!), well, at least I had tried to do my best to warn him or her. So much for now, God bless!

    7. Maria Renault said

      >>He may be even an Atheist or a Satanist and insult my God with the lewdest words. But I still have to tell him the truth and if I hear tomorrow that he died the same day I had talked to him (this has happened to me!), well, at least I had tried to do my best to warn him or her.<<

      My dear, I don't doubt your sincerity, but since you feel you must tell others how you think they ought to live, and what you think they ought to believe, then I must tell you what I believe.

      You talk about "my God," like he was your personal possession. At least that's the way it sounds. And that's the trouble. You decided that what you believe is all there is to what's good and true. I doubt if you realize it, but in actual fact you are equating yourself with God by implying that what you think you know about him is all there is to know. If you knew how arrogant and self important that comes across, you might want to change your way of talking to other people.

      If there is a God, and I like to believe there is, he certainly created everything and everyone including a lot of things and many types of people you don't approve of. I therefore suggest to you that if you really want to win friends for "your" God, you might want to appear less judgmental and less self-righteous. You probably think you are being very polite and sweet natured, but to me you sound very smug, very presumptuous and unkind.

      I doubt you have ever thought any of this out for yourself. It sounds as though you have just decided to accept what you've been told by someone or a group of someones with a more forceful personality than your own.

      People who are attracted to authoritarians are usually scared, very uncertain, and weak-minded. There are men who keep themselves in the army, even though it's not a pleasant way of life, because they are afraid to go out and face the world on their own. The same types manage to get themselves sent to jail over and over again for the same reason.

      Freedom scares the life out of a lot of people, too many in my opinion. and this is why we now have so many on welfare, food stamps, unemployment and all those other things that weaken people and keep them dependent and unable to grow up and be all they could be.

      I'm sorry to say it, but your simplistic brand of religion is the same sort of thing.

    8. That is an interesting reply indeed. I have stated some general truths you can find in the Bible about those topics, and you get all uptight and nervous about my personal beliefs. It is funny, but I am not offended my friend, at least it shows that I hit the right button.
      Of course I do tell others what I believe and also if I believe that what they believe is wrong. Actually you are doing the same thing and that is called dialogue. How else could we ever consider anything in life otherwise, if we were all f the same opinion?
      I don't know who are he "authoritarians", I am not following any and never have. I only follow Christ and that since 1984, so I guess I do know a little about Him. And faith IS very simple, indeed.
      By the way, I say it is 'my God' because I am His child and He is my Father in heaven, I can say that without being presumptuous or arrogant. That comes with the ticket.
      The danger comes if you want to create "your own" God, i.e. one that fits all your beliefs, which is what a lot of people do. Unfortunately this God does not exist. The real One is invisible, but nevertheless there. How is He? Read the Bible. Sounds very simple again, but nothing more is required.
      If people don't like 'my' God, fair enough, they don't have to. I am just a witness.
      If somebody on the road stops and asks me for directions to a particular destination and I realize he/she is driving in exactly the opposite direction, I'd I tell that person to turn around and go that way, since I know the desired destination is indeed there. It would be pretty mean to say, 'Whatever, just keep going, you'll get there...', wouldn't it?

  4. Phil wasn't 'wrong', at least in the circle of Christians. But in the circle of those who place a premium on individual soveriegnty and liberty, he is not exactly 'right', if he endorses the State regulating the individual and consensual actions of citizens of all faiths and none.

  5. "sex is immoral?" did someone say THAT here? :-)

    Funny Ducky's not here; he's insulting Sam at my place with a ridiculous take on this really quite worth remarking to! But, it's not really worth it, frankly.

    Is Sam endorsing the State regulating sex? REALLY? There's a space between consensual actions in the bedroom NOBODY cares about and changing the guidelines of MARRIAGE not only in the Bible but in our courts, I'd have thought.

    1. That's Z "anonymous" writing from work computer

    2. But I [and others] would respectfully argue that while it's nice to say that one doesn't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes.....it's a greater insult to liberty to demand the State regulate the privileges and protections accessible by some citizens, but not others....based either on a generic position of sexual orientation and/or a religious tome.....all in a nation that professes to provide equal protections to all citizens regardless of faith.

    3. CI … other than you just now, no one here made that argument, or even suggested it. The question was, “Was Phil Wrong?” If you embrace God’s word as contained in the Old and New Testament, then the answer is “No, Phil is not wrong.” If you or anyone disagrees with Phil, that is fine … because everyone in this country has the right to their own opinion. Even Ducky … no matter how asinine his opinion may be.

    4. Not true. I was responding to a point that Z made. Which is why I replied to her post and not the topic.

      "Is Sam endorsing the State regulating sex? REALLY? There's a space between consensual actions in the bedroom NOBODY cares about and changing the guidelines of MARRIAGE not only in the Bible but in our courts, I'd have thought."

      Aside from being intrigued as to why all of God's word is not followed form both testaments, I absolutely agree that everybody as the right to their own opinion. I did not state or imply otherwise.

    5. No worries. I should have taken the opportunity to reinforce Robertson's freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. I may disagree with him, but the media frenzy was uncalled for. Such is the paradigm of infotainment that we labor under.

    6. Could you possibly have meant "paradox" and not "paradigm, CI? I can't be sure.

      Of course I support Robertson's right to say whatever he wants to privately or publicly, but that means I also support the right of others to tell the world how they feel about his sentiments or religious convictions -- whatever they should be called, I'm not sure.

      Even the Westboro Baptist Church, which I, personally, think is a disgrace, and as potentially evil as Naziism, Communism, and Theocratic Tyranny combined, even that vile organization has a constitutional right to express their opinions.

      As a libertarian, by the way, I am dead set against speech codes and hate speech laws. ACTING on one's hatred and disapproval to the point of resurrecting the practices of robbing, lynching, stoning, torturing, decapitating, etc. MUST be forbidden and punished .

      I completely agree by the way, with your initial response. I only wish that things of this sort didn't always bring out so much hostility. It may be cloaked in the most dignified and polite terms, but it's still hostility all the same. I am a Cristian, but I have never felt -- and hope I never do feel -- compelled to buttonhole perfect strangers, slight acquaintances or social friends, and tell them how "sinful" I think they are. Such behavior is not only distasteful, it's almost invariably destructive. In this regard Christian "do-gooders" filled with self-righteous zeal are no different from their Marxian or Muslim counterparts.

      More hideous offenses are committed by innocent-but-unthinking people who have only "good intentions." And as we've all been told so often, "the road to hell ..."

  6. Equal protection Sam.

    Get used to it.
    Fundamentalism has lost the culture wars and trotting out the Duck Dynasty bimbos won't change that.

    Poor Sam is offended that he has to be aware there are gays in America. He and z are going to choke on it I fear.

    1. Seriously, Ducky … get some help. You are not even lucid. If you are offended by Phil’s point of view, or mine … tough. This is why Warren refers to you as Nostradumbass … because you are.

    2. Ducky, your taunting sarcasm and belligerent style are no more helpful in helping society reach Enlightenment than the sentiments of those who wear mental straitjackets and consider themselves "righteous" and "in tune with the Lord" because of it. Bigotry, Contempt and Mean Spiritedness are the same no matter whose banner they carry.

  7. I seems to me that Phil Robertson was expressing his opinion -- as based upon the Bible. If people don't like what he had to say, well, tough. To my knowledge, he did not advocate any kind of violence, vigilantism, etc.

    I read and hear things all the time that I don't agree with. And, yes, I often disregard those statements.


  8. From what i am able to understand of the following excerpt from a well-known series of Daily Religious Meditations we, as individuals, are most often, so blinded by the conditioning we received in childhood -- our provincial cultural mores, our prejudices, our reflexive, habitual reactions to stimuli, and our passions, we have little or no ability to comprehend the humbling, awe-inspiring magnificence of Truth in its entirety.
    Because we are guided by our personal perceptions of The Word and rarely-if-ever by the ESSENCE of The Word, itself, we tend to make terrible errors in judgment that often result in missed opportunities to share joy in living at best, or tragedy at worst.

    “When we talk about the call of God, we often forget the most important thing, namely, the nature of Him who calls.

    “There are many things calling each of us today. Some of these calls will be answered, and others will not even be heard.

    “The call is the expression of the nature of the One who calls, and we can only recognize the call if that same nature is in us.

    “The call of God is the expression of God’s nature, not ours.

    “God providentially weaves the threads of His call through our lives, and only we can distinguish them. It is the threading of God’s voice directly to us over a certain concern, and it is useless to seek another person’s opinion of it.

    “Our dealings over the call of God should be kept exclusively between ourselves and Him.

    “The call of God is not a reflection of my nature; my personal desires and temperament are of no consideration.

    As long as I dwell on my own qualities and traits and think about what I am suited for, I will never hear the call of God. ...

    “The majority of us cannot hear anything but ourselves. And [because of that] we cannot hear anything God says. But to be brought to the place where we can hear the call of God is to be profoundly changed.”

    ~ Oswald Chambers - My Utmost for His Highest

  9. GOD is the same, yesterday, today and forever. And after all the spitting in HIS Face that has been going on in this country, all the calling of HIS Ways evil and intolerant, all the broken oaths and covenants, all the pride and arrogance...we ARE under judgment.
    HE CANNOT bless us as a nation anymore.
    And I challenge anyone who thinks they can, beware, we are no better than the 10 Northern tribes in Jeremiah's day. HE will call us, nationally, to account...we have barely seen what HE will do in HIS Wrath.


  10. I don't know if Phil is wrong so much as irrelevant but I find it ironic that hhe makes his money manufacturing things for men to blow.

  11. Phil Robertson did not advocate violence.

    On the other hand, Entourage creator: Duck Dynasty would be better if gays shot at Phil Robertson. And the promoters of the gay agenda accuses "homophobes" of promoting hate crimes?

  12. Maria Renault said

    What you're doing here is the same thing as talking against the Jews. No one can criticize them or question their motives at all anymore, because doing that leads to persecution. Talking about Jews at all is taboo.

    Do homosexuals have to go through an official attempt to annihilate them before fundamentalists wake up to the evil in their mistaken way of thinking and believing? Will millions have to be taken from their homes, put in captivity and tortured and killed before the so-called Christian community realizes how dangerously wrong it is? Someday homosexuals will be given the same immunity from questioning and criticism that Jews have today. It's sad that to finally shut people up hate crime laws had to be passed with stiff punishments for disobedience. In Europe you can be put in jail for passing any remarks that might be thought of as antisemitic. Homosexuals deserve the same protection from the bad feelings of ignorant people whose heads are controlled by barbaric ancient superstition.

    1. Brother! I have a Jewish client and she takes no offense from me, nor does she feel threatened by me. My apts. property manager is an unashamedly flaming queen(his words, not mine), he and I get along great.
      Last time I looked, the only Perfect Person, who never sinned or made a mistake was crucified. I do not look down my nose at anyone, but I will call a murderer a murderer to their face...same with a child molester or arsonist.
      And America never had concentration camps...Europe did.
      BIG difference. So you can get off your hypocritical screed.


    2. Maria Renault said

      I don't believe I was addressing you in particular. This started as a response to another anonymous person who gave no name at all. I'm sure in real life you're a lovely person and very easy to get along with. Do you preach Christianity to the Jewish person you know, or to the self-named "screaming queen," and tell them to their faces what you've said here? Somehow I doubt it, at least I hope not. People dislike very much being told what they should and should not believe.

      It's true we never had concentration camps as such in this country, but what we did to African slaves and to the Native Americans is just about as bad. There is also Andersonville for which we should feel great shame.

      What I'm trying to get across is the fact that, though I'm sure you are probably well-meaning, making public statements such as you and others have made here gives people who hate anything different or puzzling a rationale for persecuting people they don't like, don't understand, or disapprove of on religious grounds. The population is full of ignorant rednecks and vicious thugs.

      History is loaded with examples of horrible crimes and wholesale slaughter being committed in the name of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that Jesus was responsible for any of it. He would never have approved of the Crusades or the Inquisition, and all the other terrible things done in his name. I don't think any sane person would want to see that kind of thing start up again. We have it now with the Islamic extremists, and the way those people think and what they want to believe is as ugly as sin. Anything that tends even a little bit towards promoting intolerance, unkindness and brutality should be discouraged.

      Believe what you want to believe, of course, but I agree with Ellie Rosenfeld up there. The less said about these inflammatory subjects the better. No one in their right mind would bring them up if they weren't full of hate. That works both ways by the way. Leftist activists have done a lot of harm. I think they almost beg for trouble. It would be smart not to give it to them.

    3. Marie,
      I know TMW personally. Back when my husband had a stroke in 2009, she dropped everything and came from Florida and here to Northern Virginia to caregive my husband for 6 weeks. As an unpaid volunteer!

      TMW has strong convictions of faith -- as do I. But neither one of us advocates "arm twisting." Expressions of free speech are a different matter.

      You said:

      The less said about these inflammatory subjects the better.

      Ahem. Jesus Christ didn't advocate exactly that, did He? Speaking out against sin and evil was an integral part of his teachings. Yes, He was kind to sinners. He also said, "Go and sin no more." In other words, he reached out to sinners, then urged them to follow God's Law. Intolerance of SIN is Biblical, and that theme runs through both the Old and New Testaments.

    4. Well, my dear friend, I do agree, BUT I fervently believe there is room for Insight, and much prayerful contemplation of Reality -- of the role we as individuals might best play in it -- and dignified debate about the true nature and meaning of the word "SIN."

      Of course, as a thoughtful, prayerful, possibly creative, decently educated person, I admit to being as vehemently "anti-Fundy" as I am dead set against any other adamantly naive, simplistic, intellectually unexamined approaches to anything.

      Having worked -- for over FORTY YEARS -- for most of the mainline Christian denominations in different geographical loci -- urban, suburban, and rural -- and on radically different socio-economic levels -- I can tell you -- and I think you already know this -- there are so many ignorant, stingy, gossipy, unkind, power-mad hypocrites, bigots and outright fools among those who dare to call themselves Christians it's enough to make one lose one's faith.

      Both Ellie and Maria should be welcome here. They show us differing points of view in a thoughtful manner. We should respect everybody, even if we disagree with them. Disagreement stated responsibly without anger, bitterness, name-calling, deliberate cruelty, or indulgence in "personalities" is a great thing. At least I think so. No one else has to agree with me.

  13. I have no problem with differing opinions...my teeth get set on edge when there is a wholesale, blanket attack on conservative Christians. Such as has happened to Phil Robertson. And many others.
    Another client of mine proudly proclaimed himself a communist...we talk about culinary arts and Hawaii. He knows what a libertarian is, lol.
    It seems that conservatives and Christians are expected to sit back and shut up when they are abused. And also be grateful when they are shouted down for speaking the Truth.
    As for abuses against native Americans, blacks and others...are we not all guilty at one time or another of 'them vs. us' thinking? Don't ask me about snowbirds driving habits down in Florida...EEEEEEK!
    Yes we can disagree without being disagreeable, but sometimes I get tired of being polite in the face of blanket, abusive and rude treatment. I'm still working on being Christlike...though if I remember correctly, HE referred to the pharisees as; a brood of vipers and whitened sepulchers full of dead men's bones...



We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.