Duck Dynasty Dis

[Lilllabettt]

No. I didn't call anyone or anyone's post anti-Christ.

I said the hope that sinners will not get into Heaven is anti-Christ.

Which it is.

Jesus lived and died and lived again so that sinners could get into Heaven. That was the whole point.

 

Edited December 30, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[cappie]

No. I didn't call anyone or anyone's post anti-Christ.

I said the hope that sinners will not get into Heaven is anti-Christ.

Which it is.

Jesus lived and died and lived again so that sinners could get into Heaven. That was the whole point.

 

That's fine I was just quoting what someone quoted to me using St Paul: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

I keep forgetting some don't understand irony :frown:

[Lilllabettt]

That's fine I was just quoting what someone quoted to me using St Paul: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

I keep forgetting some don't understand irony :frown:

 

 

 

ohhh kay. I still don't get it even with you pointing it out. But anyway for future use this is the irony smiley ----->>>>> :| help the dumbos in your midst

Edited December 30, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I am holier than thou!!!!!!! Now get off my internets!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[add]

" Pope Francis pointed out, we have no need to disrespectfully criticize our brothers and sisters who choose to live apart from this teaching, however we do not have to condone such behavior either. "

[southern california guy]

" Pope Francis pointed out, we have no need to disrespectfully criticize our brothers and sisters who choose to live apart from this teaching, however we do not have to condone such behavior either. "

 

I don't understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that nobody should criticize sexually perverted behavior like homosexual behavior or pedophile behavior???  Or is it only ok to criticize pedophiles because that involves abusing minors and kids???  I don't understand what you guys are saying.

 

What do you feel can and cannot be said?  Are Catholics, in particular, sensitive to criticizm of homosexuality, because there are so darn many homosexual Priests?

[Norseman82]

Being an adult means you can have your own opinion. Being mature means knowing when it is appropriate to express that opinion.

 

According to the PC police, it is never appropriate, otherwise you will be accused (falsely) of being a bigot.  Just ask the Canadian bishop who was brought before some Canadian human rights commission for a Catholic magazine article expressing the Church's teaching on homosexual stuff.   

 

I don't know how it is in Australia, but here in the US we cherish our first amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. 

Edited December 30, 2013 by Norseman82

[cappie]

According to the PC police, it is never appropriate, otherwise you will be accused (falsely) of being a bigot.  Just ask the Canadian bishop who was brought before some Canadian human rights commission for a Catholic magazine article expressing the Church's teaching on homosexual stuff.   

 

I don't know how it is in Australia, but here in the US we cherish our first amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. 

 

In Australia we have never needed a "First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion" to live our lives. 

[add]

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that nobody should criticize sexually perverted behavior like homosexual behavior or pedophile behavior??? Or is it only ok to criticize pedophiles because that involves abusing minors and kids??? I don't understand what you guys are saying.

What do you feel can and cannot be said? Are Catholics, in particular, sensitive to criticizm of homosexuality, because there are so darn many homosexual Priests?

Your opinion of catholic priest is extremely prejudice and demeaning,
Love the sinner- hate the sin,,,

[southern california guy]

Your opinion of catholic priest is extremely prejudice and demeaning,
Love the sinner- hate the sin,,,

 

You are being funny right?  I think that the statistic is something like 40 percent of Catholic priests (In the US) are homosexuals.  Is that "prejudice" and "demeaning"??  Again I don't understand.

 

When we talk about "homosexuality" we are talking about the sin.  It is vague, it's not about a particular person.

[Aloysius]

Mr. Robertson's statements were based not on anything theological or biblical, but on an appeal to the "ick" factor... the sort of "it's a sin because it's obviously gross" kind of logic.  that kind of logic is never appropriate or helpful IMO... not that his statements were all that bad compared to some ick-factor masquerading as morality you find with some ppl, but that was what the whole thing is based upon, which is why I find it ridiculous when they claim Phil Robertson was fired for just saying what the Bible said.

 

I mean just look at this theological wisdom everyone has rallied around:

"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.”

 

... seriously?  And we have a bunch of ppl saying "he's just saying what the Bible says"?  lol, no, no he's not.

 

but anyway, it wasn't all that bad, but personally I have no desire for Catholic moral theology relating to sexuality to be associated with statements like this.

[CrossCuT]

Mr. Robertson's statements were based not on anything theological or biblical, but on an appeal to the "ick" factor... the sort of "it's a sin because it's obviously gross" kind of logic.  that kind of logic is never appropriate or helpful IMO... not that his statements were all that bad compared to some ick-factor masquerading as morality you find with some ppl, but that was what the whole thing is based upon, which is why I find it ridiculous when they claim Phil Robertson was fired for just saying what the Bible said.

 

I mean just look at this theological wisdom everyone has rallied around:

"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.”

 

... seriously?  And we have a bunch of ppl saying "he's just saying what the Bible says"?  lol, no, no he's not.

 

but anyway, it wasn't all that bad, but personally I have no desire for Catholic moral theology relating to sexuality to be associated with statements like this.

 

THIS

 

It is the same reaction I had. He is being gross. I said nearly this same thing to my boyfriend when I was venting about the topic. He is talking about vaginas and anal...its not appropriate and Im pretty sure no one in the Bible said that ish. 

[NotreDame]

Here is some context of his remarks from the full interview:

 

“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

 

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.

 

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

 

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

 

 

Mr. Robertson's statements were based not on anything theological or biblical, but on an appeal to the "ick" factor...

[...]

... seriously?  And we have a bunch of ppl saying "he's just saying what the Bible says"?  lol, no, no he's not.

 

He had two separate quotes that were singled out by GLAAD (I posted GLAAD's statement earlier in the thread if you'd care to read it.)  The first was a comment on anatomy that's obviously an opinion with no theological reference.  The second (quoted above) is later in a separate area where he discusses his religious beliefs and "paraphrases Corinthians." 

 

So some of his statements weren't biblical, but some were.

[Aloysius]

meh, still with that context, his basic attitude towards homosexuality continues to be something like the "it's gross, therefore sinful" logic that I would not want to be associated with at all.  good luck to him, anyway.

[NotreDame]

meh, still with that context, his basic attitude towards homosexuality continues to be something like the "it's gross, therefore sinful" logic that I would not want to be associated with at all.  good luck to him, anyway.

 

"Gross and sinful"? Sure.  "Gross therefore sinful?"  Not sure where you are getting that from the interview. 

 

I think if you read the thread most of us aren't so much supporting and wanting to be associated with Phil as we are fearful that we too may be fired someday for voicing our moral beliefs.  So it's the censoring and heavy-handedness of A&E (and the prevailing society) that concerns us, not Phil's well-being.