'Duck Dynasty' to resume filming with Phil Robertson

Phage
reply to post by IraColmillo

 

Actually, he's pretty specific. You can start at about 17:30. He's obsessed with sex and homosexuality.

They are against men having sex with other men.

Yes. I know. I just don't know why it is any concern of theirs. (Yeah, I know. Gotta "save" 'em.) Don't you think there are worse "sins" than diddling each other? No wait, a mortal sin is a mortal sin, right? Gay sex = murder.

It's okay to have the desire. It's not okay to act on any immorally sexual impulse.

What constitutes "immoral" sex? Is oral sex "immoral"? Why is it "immoral" for people who want to, to do anything they want sexually? Why is it anyone's business but theirs? Seems somewhat "unnatural" to be so concerned about what other people do in their bedrooms.

His right, of course. My right to call his obsession somewhat odd.

edit on 12/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

At 17:30 he says "sexual immorality." As in ALL sexual immorality, as I've already stated he says. He says how it is rampant in America. Again, the part where you say he is talking about homosexuality is him quoting Romans chapter 1. I've already posted it for you. As I've already said, he's quoting the end of Romans 1 to show where we are as a nation. The fact that sexual immorality is rampant shows how we're not a godly nation. You know we are not a godly nation. This is your point.

I'm sure you watched the rest to find out why he focuses on Romans 1. I already laid it out.

I would totally agree with you that it's no one else's business. That's between a person and God. Phil is talking to people who want to hear what he has to say. You are not interested in hearing it, so he won't be offended that you don't care to hear it.
If, however, you choose to read or listen to what he has to say, it's not really fair for you to claim that you don't want to hear it and therefore he shouldn't say it.

If you can find somewhere that Phil states that what a person does behind closed doors should be brought out into public, I would be interested in seeing it.

You call it an obsession. I think it's cherry-picking on the part of the side with the agenda. You're getting an overdose of what they want you to see, and out of context. It's a very tiny fraction of what he has to say. That's a 50 minute video. Homosexuality is mentioned a max of 20 seconds... (when it happens to be a part of the bible passage he quotes.)

You are welcome to correct my time estimate. Just keep in mind that sexual immorality does not equal homosexuality.

I'm not sure where you're going with the question of "What constitutes immoral sex?" Oral sex is not forbidden biblically. I can list them out for you if you want. Just let me know...

reply to post by Gryphon66


I already posted the scripture. It clearly is listing sins belonging to people who don't worship God. One of those is a bent towards sexual perversion. The others you just listed.

Once again -- The sins listed in Romans 1 are indicative of a people who have turned their backs on God. One of the indicators is vile affections. The other indicators are:

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

We, as a (world?) ARE guilty of these things. If homosexuals are guilty of these things, they're not alone. Neither does the bible say that these pertain to homosexuals. It says these are the things you will find in people who reject God.

Clearly we agree, since you, rejecting God, are okay with homosexuality in our nation. Unless of course you think that these other things don't apply to our (world)?

reply to post by AuntC

From what I have been able to find, the episode where Phil and Kay redo their wedding vows is celebrating their 49th wedding anniversary.
That still seems to amount to a two year discrepancy if my math is correct. Their 49th wedding anniversary should be in 2015, right?
Anyway, here is a link to a blog (I know, a blog) talking about the episode...
blog

reply to post by IraColmillo

If, however, you choose to read or listen to what he has to say, it's not really fair for you to claim that you don't want to hear it and therefore he shouldn't say it.

I've heard it. Not from him but I've heard it. I don't need to hear it again.

If you can find somewhere that Phil states that what a person does behind closed doors should be brought out into public, I would be interested in seeing it.

I didn't say he did. I questioned why he gives a damn about it.

I'm not sure where you're going with the question of "What constitutes immoral sex?"

You used the term. I was asking for clarification.

Oral sex is not forbidden biblically.

Oh. I thought it fell under the category of sodomy as any sexual act that isn't intercourse but maybe that's just someone elses interpretation. No telling how people can interpret the Bible when it serves their purpose.

Personally I don't care but not being a Bible scholar I'm not sure what is permitted. Anything not explicitly forbidden is OK? I seem to recall some stuff in the Old Testament that's not really paid much attention to (for good reason) though.

reply to post by IraColmillo


As I see it heterosexuals cause the same sin. They commit adultery and lust for another's mate therefore sin. Are they going to hell?

reply to post by Phage

It clearly is listing sins belonging to people who don't worship God. One of those is a bent towards sexual perversion.

So now he's talking about me. I don't worship. I'm not homosexual. If he's including me in that package he's way off base and it pisses me off more than if he was just talking about homosexuals.

Homosexuals don't believe? Don't worship?

Those who do worship don't engage in perversion?

It...makes....no....sense!
It's foolish. It's ignorant.
It's hellfire. It's brimstone.

A couple of recent studies as noted by the Pew Research Center, might suggest a few reasons why there is so much obsessive concern with homosex. (Source ). More studies are needed to make any statements of fact.

The problem may be that here is a lot more anti-gay sentiment out there than most polls detect COUPLED with a much higher incidence of same-sex attraction and activity than most polls detect.

One wonders if there might be a direct correlation between the two, i.e., being obsessed with anti-gay commentary and activism in public while pursuing something else in private.

Is there any other evidence of such trends?

Top 16 Anti-Gay Activists Caught Being Gay
Gay Sex Scandals of Career Anti-Gay Crusaders
Church Child Molestation

... and so on, and so on.

This seems to be at least one explanation for these obsessions to some degree, and there are certainly others that don't arise from repressed homosexual desires. Surely, right?

Right?

reply to post by Phage

Do all pedophiles act on their drives? If they don't should they be reviled or loved (in the Christian sense)?

Couldn't tell ya. If they don't how the hell am I or anyone else going to know? When it comes to the ones who do, what difference does it make if some don't? Regardless, the point you are skipping over was normalizing before legalizing. Your bit about how they should be received should they not is a step towards that, humble though it be. The issue is shifting and the slope is greased.

I have a child. Anyone who harms her (in any way) will suffer for it.

Very admirable, mama bear. But is sex with a minor-attracted adult really harmful? Why do you jump to such conclusions re inter-generational love? Again, who are you to judge and by what standard?

I don't care what homosexuals do with each other. Why do you?

I haven't said word one regarding what gay folks do with each other and don't care about that any more than I care about the duck show. Your insinuations towards my being homophobic are noted as are your attempts to drive the dialogue off point. Looks like I wasn't off the mark with the fellow travelers bit after all.

Some Christians really don't like it when people use Bible verses against them, do they? Sputtering about taking verses out of context, claiming that no one but they can understand what Scripture REALLY means, blatantly ignoring any positive messages to concentrate on the negative ones? The ones in which they get to be slyly superior to others while claiming humility?

How can that be anything but the most rank kind of hypocrisy.

The most vocal Christians seem increasingly deaf to the positive messages of love espoused by Jesus Christ. Let's quote Romans, let's quote Leviticus, Deuteronomy, ANYTHING that we can manipulate to our point and then ignore Christ's fundamental message.

There is some hope for some Christians, however. Witness:

"A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: 'Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?' We must always consider the person." (Pope Francis)

But what would he know, huh? He's just the Vicar of Christ. Pfft.

reply to post by MOMof3

So that must mean a heterosexual rape can't be helped because of biology? Sex with children is the same. Pedophiles are predators like serial killers. It is about the power over another human being, not love.

Not to hear them tell it, and tell it they are. It's about love as genuine as adult to adult love and your outmoded morals are what need to be transcended.

That's the plan and the way it is done is to normalize the new order and denormalize the traditional order. Make the new way seem enlightened and the traditional way seem like atavistic nonsense, the stuff of wooly headed goat herders following stupid books filled with hate speech and, well, you know the drill.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


Jesus, it almost sounds like you are defending pedophiles justification.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Regardless, the point you are skipping over was normalizing before legalizing.

The point you failed to make is a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality while implying there is one. Do you think it was a bad thing for homosexuality to be "normalized?" To be legalized?

Your bit about how they should be received should they not is a step towards that, humble though it be.

In that case the Christian view (hate the sin, not the sinner) would be as well, would it not? Or do you think it should be illegal to think bad thoughts? To have illicit drives? That would seem to be a real slippery slope. More of a cliff actually.

But is sex with a minor-attracted adult really harmful?

Yes. Children are not equipped to consent or deal with it. It is the equivalent of adult rape but more heinous because it betrays the trust which children place in adults.

Again, who are you to judge and by what standard?

A rational human being. Based on the standard that nonconsensual sex is by its nature, harmful.

Your insinuations towards my being homophobic are noted as are your attempts to drive the dialogue off point.

I see. So your talking about the "normalizing" of homosexuality in comparison with the supposed "normalization" of pedophilia does not indicate that you think there is anything particularly wrong with it. That there's nothing wrong with "legalizing" it. Good for you. My apologies for misunderstanding your position on homosexuality.

Looks like I wasn't off the mark with the fellow travelers bit after all.

Yes, you were. You can say what ever you wish and so can Phil. Nothing PC about me. Just don't expect me to agree or condone your point of view or to accept any implication that I do.

reply to post by daskakik

Seems to be yours as well. As someone pointed out in another thread, both sides would love to silence the other and they use similar tactics.

No. I emphatically do not use the same tactics and I do not want to silence anyone.

I want everyone to play a straight game. I want people to stand for what they stand for and not hide behind bs deflection and disinfo and all the slimy tricks of the trade. I respond directly to points, I add specific evidence when called for, I don't twist people's words or aggressively misread them or throw up strawmen or red herrings, and I don't do the non-sequitur shuffle or just throw crap at the wall just to watch it stick.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


I respect that.

reply to post by MOMof3


Yes. The Christian view would be we are all going to hell. For the same sins and others.

Forgiveness from sins (and hell) is free though. So the only people that end up in hell are the ones that choose to reject God's forgiveness.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Hey, BlueMoonJoe, may I ask what your personal belief is in regard to the matter?

Do you believe that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia and/or child abuse? Yes, no, maybe?

No.

Although some pedos are certainly homosexuals, not all homosexuals are pedos. Same with hets and pedos. But more to the point, when playing by the PC rules, for many (but definitely not me) homo and pedo are equivalent, both are not a problem.

That's the cake ya'll baked with the postmodern moral relativism cookbook, so it hardly seems right to turn around and bitch if it turns out to bite you in the butt.

Forget the "PC police" the "cultural marxists" and the rest, would you share with us what you believe?

Didn't recognize ya at first due to your new avatar, but your mentioning cultural marxism got my attention. Your post about that in the culture war thread deserves its own thread as it was a perfect example of disinfo. It was slick as can be.

I seriously don't like the PC fruit from the cultural marxist tree, the Frankfurt School/Gramsci roots of which are real as rain, the disinfo in your post notwithstanding. And many of us have indeed been useful idiots. I know I have been along the way.

That is where my beef lies. I am against glaad's PC ways, not gays. I don't have anything against gay folks per se and don't equate being gay with being a pedo. But glaad is a different kettle of rotten fish, not because they are gay but because they are intimidating tyrannical bullies and their methods do far more harm than any good they can ever do.

Phage
reply to post by Phage

 

It clearly is listing sins belonging to people who don't worship God. One of those is a bent towards sexual perversion.

So now he's talking about me. I don't worship. I'm not homosexual. If he's including me in that package he's way off base and it pisses me off more than if he was just talking about homosexuals.

Homosexuals don't believe? Don't worship?

Those who do worship don't engage in perversion?

It...makes....no....sense!
It's foolish. It's ignorant.
It's hellfire. It's brimstone.

I'll simplify it for you: Nations who reject God, reject His authority. Therefore they reject His laws: They sin. Those are a list of those sins.
They may not all apply to you, but if there are no absolutes, anything goes; if taken far enough.

reply to post by IraColmillo

They may not all apply to you, but if there are no absolutes, anything goes; if taken far enough.

I'm not a Christian but as I understand it there is one absolute? One that I agree with. What does consensual sex have to do with it?

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Pretty logical really. "Social contracts". That sort of thing. "Anything" doesn't actually go.

reply to post by MOMof3

Jesus, it almost sounds like you are defending pedophiles justification.

Whoa. I am not justifying it. I am just pointing out that it is being justified and how it is being played. I was being ironic with the bit about your morals as someone played that card on me earlier.

I'm most definitely not defending pedos, though I will drop into PC speak in order to demonstrate what is coming down the pike, like it or not.

I did that with phage in asking him who is he to judge, but I am hoping it's understood that this is what I am doing, given my overall stance, which is consistently anti PC and its evil ways.

BlueMoonJoe:

Thank you for answering my direct query. I do not generally address comments to individuals in these discussions, because that generally leads to mere bickering and ego engagement, but, in this case, I think I owe you a direct response in return. I ask for the indulgence of a long post.

I am glad to hear that you do not personally buy into the homosexual=pedophile false equivalency that is, let's admit, part and parcel of the "right wing dialogue" as currently offered in the US.

I want to acknowledge first that you seem to be a very professional writer and skilled debater. I do intend to address you with respect in the following.

You stated above in response to another poster that you do not participate in throwing up strawmen, red herrings or other logical fallacies, but I have to say I have to disagree with you in what I've seen from your presentations thus far. You use them all very skillfully.

It may seem obvious to you (given your apparent commitment to the "Frankfurt School" conspiracies) what you mean by "PC" and "Cultural Marxism" and "thought police" and "PC This-PC That" but I can assure you that the constant and repetitive use of undefined terms and specific references seems as tactical and measured as any employed by any political operative, anywhere.

Yes we all know what is meant culturally by "PC" ... yet, such tactics are certainly equally deployed on the right as well as on the left (as I assume you intend by linking the terms with "cultural marxism"). If you have information on the organized group that you keep alluding to, please share it with us, perhaps in another thread, so that a common ground of understanding can be had. Perhaps then your presentations won't seem quite so straw-filled or herring-smelling.

Despite your attempts to paint me (and really, anyone who offers counter arguments to you) into the PC-Marxist-"Postmodernist"corner ... I'll tell you directly that I view the "rightist or leftist" choice in general as utter horse-pucky. It's nothing more than a control mechanism installed by the authoritarians.

I have found it impossible to place myself into any modern political party or philosophy because they all, in ways great or small, are cankered with dirty forensics, underhanded propaganda, and good ol' fashioned "durned lies."

I seek to form the most rational positions I can from available evidence, and I don't like hypocrites nor bullies.