It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
I think had Robertson said " To me xyz is a sin" or " according to my faith and belief xyz is a sin" before his original comment, none of this would have gained the slightest bit of traction and GLAAD would not have a leg to stand on. But he didn't and so, they do.
The issue GLAAD is raising is legitimate. Blanket statement can be killers. People *are* being discriminated against, are being beaten and are being killed on the sole basis that Joe Bog's faith is the RIGHT one, the ONLY faith and whats more, is the "ONE TRUE FAITH" so therefore every word written here in xyz book - interpreted THIS RIGHT WAY ACCORDING TO ME - is THE ONLY truth for EVERYONE.
It isn't though, and can never be, and that kind of one eyed thinking isn't much different from the dribble violent jihadists say every day when you look at it.
IMO, if people just owned their stuff, even just by using a simple preface like "according to my faith or my belief", and so make a choice to not make blanket statements and have some real respect ( which is just self admitting your not god and dont know it all) instead of trying to score points, life could be so much better and neither side would be given a free club to beat another side...ever.
“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.”
“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 ou t later, you see what I’m saying?”
I see your point...and I'm expressing my disagreement with his point of view and perhaps a little too harshly and zealously. I'll give you guys that. I get a little to passionate with this type of thing. My concern remains valid though. Read his quotes now and from previous interviews and speeches and he's saying that homosexuality is sin and comparable to having sex with animals or as part of that list of sins. So you have to take a stand on this view. Is Homosexuality a life choice like smoking or is it something you have almost no or no control of being? I didn't wake up deciding whether I was going to be sexually attracted to women or men today.. it wasn't a choice for me.
The second concern is that if you get millions of people with his view point that minorities were better off without civil rights...that's a pretty bad road we're heading down. Isn't it? Am I wrong to express that all men are created equally as our forefathers said? He's not right in his thinking and I'm opposed to him and those that think like him.
“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.”
Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
Dear Occum's sock puppet.
Not taking the bait.
cheers
BlueMoonJoe
Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
I think had Robertson said " To me xyz is a sin" or " according to my faith and belief xyz is a sin" before his original comment, none of this would have gained the slightest bit of traction and GLAAD would not have a leg to stand on. But he didn't and so, they do.
He most certainly said it was because of his faith that he thought it was a sin, so I’m not sure how you are missing that. He was paraphrasing the Bible. As for GLAAD, they aren’t interested in niceties such as accuracy of whether they have a case. It’s just fire away with the smear job and strong arm tactics such as going against the sponsors. It’s not only about Phil, it’s going nuclear in order to warn ANYONE that nothing outside the accepted canon shall be tolerated. That’s the whole PC gameplan right there.
The issue GLAAD is raising is legitimate. Blanket statement can be killers. People *are* being discriminated against, are being beaten and are being killed on the sole basis that Joe Bog's faith is the RIGHT one, the ONLY faith and whats more, is the "ONE TRUE FAITH" so therefore every word written here in xyz book - interpreted THIS RIGHT WAY ACCORDING TO ME - is THE ONLY truth for EVERYONE.
It isn't though, and can never be, and that kind of one eyed thinking isn't much different from the dribble violent jihadists say every day when you look at it.
When GLAAD has the balls to go after the Islam then maybe you will have a better case. As it is, GLAAD would have made a better case if they were honest, but they were not. They just went into attack mode and sought to pump up the outrage. They misrepresented his comments as lies, exaggerations, and vile stereotypes when they were nothing of the kind. In doing so, GLAAD proved itself vile in its lying and exaggerating and its seeking to defame Phil by saying he wasn’t a real Christian.
Phil didn’t do anything to incite hatred, so your point about folks being killed by blanket statements doesn’t apply and the overheated bit about the one true faith stuff is a red herring.
IMO, if people just owned their stuff, even just by using a simple preface like "according to my faith or my belief", and so make a choice to not make blanket statements and have some real respect ( which is just self admitting your not god and dont know it all) instead of trying to score points, life could be so much better and neither side would be given a free club to beat another side...ever.
Again, he owned it and he has been wholly upfront about his faith, which was what he was talking about when this part of the interview came up:
“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.”
“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 ou t later, you see what I’m saying?”
www.gq.com...
Nothing in there that is intolerant or hateful. Just speaking his beliefs and loving all, even those he thinks of as sinners--because according to the beliefs he was plainly speaking of, everyone is a sinner, including Phil.
No matter how you slice this, GLAAD has no case, unless you want to say that anything but absolute acceptance about anything regarding gays is unacceptable, which apparently is what GLAAD is shooting for.
gwynned
Love the title. CULTURE wars? That was meant to be ironic, no?
Son of Will
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
BS. If he subscribes to a faith, nay, preaches and promotes it daily, and acknowledges that the faith considers homosexuality to be a sin, then he is by proxy saying that homosexuality is a sin.
He is saying it is wrong in a PC, beat-around-the-bush way.
Like OccamsRazor said earlier, his belief system dictates that it's wrong. His "unconditional love" apparently has conditions! Same for Robertson. The act of saying "I love you despite your flaws" is basically saying "you have flaws". Doublespeak at its best.
Christians can't seem to grasp that it's not just extremist interpretations of the text that are immoral - the text itself is clearly hateful. Commanding parents to murder their children for disobeying, to murder "witches", shunning those who don't trim their beards correctly, men who lieth with other men, etc. etc. etc. The act of professing Christianity itself is a form of promoting the most vile and hate-filled messages that have ever existed.
BlueMoonJoe
Rosha
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
Dear Occum's sock puppet.
Not taking the bait.
cheers
Heh. I'm a sock puppet because your points didn't hold up to dispassionate scrutiny? Beauty. Say you don't work for GLAAD, do ya?
Regarless, I can see why you don't want debate.
Cheers.
BlueMoonJoe
gwynned
Love the title. CULTURE wars? That was meant to be ironic, no?
No. It was not. And the title was better before the censors neutered it.
BlueMoonJoe
reply to post by amazing
I see your point...and I'm expressing my disagreement with his point of view and perhaps a little too harshly and zealously. I'll give you guys that. I get a little to passionate with this type of thing. My concern remains valid though. Read his quotes now and from previous interviews and speeches and he's saying that homosexuality is sin and comparable to having sex with animals or as part of that list of sins. So you have to take a stand on this view. Is Homosexuality a life choice like smoking or is it something you have almost no or no control of being? I didn't wake up deciding whether I was going to be sexually attracted to women or men today.. it wasn't a choice for me.
So you are taking a stand and I support your doing so 100%. Note what you are not doing, however. You are not smearing a guy who disagrees with you. This puts you far ahead of GLAAD, and as another gay person said in one of the first reactions I read about this, GLAAD really blew it because instead of using the opportunity to open a dialogue, they went for the smear to pump up the outrage. In short, you good, GLAAD bad.
The second concern is that if you get millions of people with his view point that minorities were better off without civil rights...that's a pretty bad road we're heading down. Isn't it? Am I wrong to express that all men are created equally as our forefathers said? He's not right in his thinking and I'm opposed to him and those that think like him.
He's not saying anyone shouldn't have civil rights. What he said was that in his direct experience things were as they were. He also said that he was with those black people, working side by side with them. The outrage folks overlooked that. I only have this article to go on, as I've never seen the show or know anything beyond what that article said, but I see nothing where he is saying folks aren't created equal. It's just not coming through in anything he put out. Instead he's saying we should all love each other and love God. He's not saying you should be strung up or anything. That's what makes this faux outrage from GLAAD the noxious bit it is.
“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.”
Oh, the OUTRAGE. Now, because of GLAAD''s underhanded actions, people who aren't connected with them or share their activist views have to deal with the blowback from a misguided effort of PC strong arming. With friends like these, eh?
Son of Will
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
If you ever make any logical defenses, let me know. All I heard is "you're wrong, you're stupid" without addressing anything I said.
And your "No, it's the Old Testament that's bad, not the New Testament!" defense is absurd - the sane deity resides in both. Surely you acknowledge that much?
PS, I see I offended you. But understand that you have to compete with the logic if you want to get anywhere. Emotional arguments are just another way of saying "... I got nothing."