'Duck Dynasty' to resume filming with Phil Robertson

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This was based on Phage's statements and reply to Helious:

Helious

They couldn't care less about what Phil said or meant when he made his homophobic comments. You're spot on about A&E, they care about one thing, money and getting more of it. I don't think you're totally on base with stating that Phil's comments were "homophobic". I'm sure you know what that word means and so do I so I'm confused why you would label what he said as such unless you believe that he is somehow afraid or threatened by homosexuals. If that's what you believe, what reason do you have to think that and not just think that his Christian faith and upbringing leads him to just believe it is simply sexual debauchery along with sleeping around with other women and other things most southern Christians consider sins based on their faith? edit on 27-12-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

Considering man on man sex as being sinful in the same way that adultery and fornication are sins doesn't make one a homophobe.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 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: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Phil, in your estimation, is also a fornicaphobe, wickednephobe, covetousophobe, maliciousnephobe, envyophobe, murderophobe, debatophobe, deceitophobe, malignitophobe, whisperophobe, backbiterophobe...

According to the Bible, and Phil's belief system, having sex with someone other than your marriage partner is sin. And yes, the Bible defines marriage according to this same belief system. Lying, backbiting, disobedient, unmerciful, etc. are also sins.

We all love people who sin. (Yes, I acknowledge that you may not believe there is such a thing as sin.) We may tell them when they do something wrong, but that's entirely different than being afraid of the person (or even hating the person -- which is what I think you guys are really getting at.) Usually we just say we don't agree with their choices, and move on.

But if you ask a Christian if it's a sin that you're sleeping with another man's wife, they'll probably tell you what the bible says... since God defines what is sin in their belief system.

reply to post by IraColmillo

debatophobe

Yeah. He probably is one of those too.
Can't stand any who has a different worldview.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

You are out of order. I see nothing in Phil's beliefs that says he's afraid of homosexuals. He simply doesn't agree with the lifestyle. Not the same as a homophobe.

No, it is you who are out of order, the new order.

It doesn't matter if you are technically correct (and you are). Regardless of the denotation of the word homophobic, the now accepted connotation (one which has beaten into shape with relentless PC hammering), is that anything short of full and complete acceptance of homosexuality in all its manifestations and memes IS homophobia.

Resistance is futile and the sign of a hater. Do you really want to bear the stigma of a hater? Is it worth it?

I'm thinking that Jesus Christ™ addressed this issue when he said, unequivocally:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ..." (John 8:7).

That's pretty clear.

Considering that various Apostles™ then followed up with:

St. Paul: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God ..." (Romans 8:23)

St. John: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)

I believe that it's fairly obvious that whatever sins any of us may or may not commit, whatever the definitions and lists of sins are determined to be, no one who considers themselves a follower of Christ or a believer in the Bible should be obsessing or commenting on the sins of others.

And that's per JC not me ... might want to pay attention, CHRISTians.

reply to post by IraColmillo

IraColmillo
According to the Bible, and Phil's belief system, having sex with someone other than your marriage partner is sin. And yes, the Bible defines marriage according to this same belief system. Lying, backbiting, disobedient, unmerciful, etc. are also sins.

According to my belief system, Phil is a homophomic bigot.

You don't need to educate me about Christianity. I was raised in it, so I know how they use the bible to cast their judgments, justify their hatred and disrespectful comments and ridicule people who are different than they are. I've heard it all. Believe me. Phil ought to mind his own business and stop spouting hateful garbage about other people.

He is as much a sinner as ANYONE else. He is as guilty as ANY gay person. He should be looking in the mirror at the speck in his own eye.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Then Jesus told the woman to 'go and sin no more'.

Why should't Phil tell someone what he believes is sin in order that they might not commit more, when the guy you quoted says that the sinner should avoid sinning?
Just saying.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You don't need to educate me about Christianity. I was raised in it, so I know how they use the bible to cast their judgments, justify their hatred and disrespectful comments and ridicule people who are different than they are. I've heard it all. Believe me. Phil ought to mind his own business and stop spouting hateful garbage about other people.

Yes, everyone should just mind their own business and not disrespect people just for being different.

It sounds great, but while we're minding our own business, the pedos are minding theirs. And their business is to achieve the same acceptance as gays have achieved, by the same methods.

This does present a bit of a problem because it's not possible to deny them this equal treatment because of the PC playbook and all the talk of age of consent or distinctions re whether they actually act on their desires are going to be moot.

To deny them their right to be who they are is just as hateful and saying they shouldn't have the same rights as others is going to be pedophobia and folks are going to be stigmatized for being against the minor-attracted lifestyle.

This trajectory is inevitable and it is going to be interesting to see how it is handled.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

To deny them their right to be who they are is just as hateful and saying they shouldn't have the same rights as others is going to be pedophobia and folks are going to be stigmatized for being against the minor-attracted lifestyle.

There it is.
Equating pedophiles with homosexuals. Perfect.

You know that children cannot be consenting. Right?

reply to post by Phage

You know that children cannot be consenting. Right?

Correct... according to the courts.

Not so long ago, the courts upheld anti-sodomy laws.

I am not taking a side in the matter, just saying... never say never.

reply to post by butcherguy

Not so long ago, the courts upheld anti-sodomy laws.

Idiotically.

I am not taking a side in the matter, just saying... never say never.

And implying the granting of equal rights to homosexuals will lead to the legalization of sex with children.

Yes. Homophobia.

reply to post by Phage

Come now, Phage.
I implied that it is a possibility.
I could have used an example that does not involve sexuality.
How about this, at one time, the courts ruled that a man could be another man's property. The courts could change it all with a ruling. That is all that I am saying.
I am not a homophobe. I resent that you implied that I am one.

Admit this: Most people would not want a very conservative SCOTUS.... because they could
possibly overturn Roe v Wade. Do you get what I am saying?
You have admitted that courts make idiotic rulings... keep that mind.

reply to post by butcherguy

I am not a homophobe. I resent that you implied that I am one.

My apologies.

Since you used the same argument frequently seen by those who are adamantly opposed to homosexuals being granted domestic rights equal to those of heterosexuals it seemed you were in that same camp, using stereotypes, ignorance and fear.

Admit this: Most people would not want a very conservative SCOTUS.... because they could
possibly overturn Roe v Wade. Do you get what I am saying?

There is more than one reason that a very conservative (or liberal) SCOTUS is not desirable.

Jesus Christ was "without sin" in the context of Christianity and Phil Robertson isn't, regardless of what he (and his throngs of worshipful fans) thinks? (At least, 1 Peter 2:2 says: "He [Jesus] committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.")

Jesus is utterly clear on the concept of dealing with your own problems (or sin™) before trying to deal with others ... here, let me let Lord Jesus™ explain it again:

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Luke 6:42)

Further if beams and motes (or planks and specks) are referring to sins™, then both Paul and John have made it clear that no one is ever "without sin." Not to mention that the Word of God™ states clearly in Isaiah 64:6 that:

"We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall, and our sins sweep us away like the wind."

Sounds to me, based on the Bible and the Words of Jesus™ that Phil and all his brother and sister Christians should concentrate more on loving others as they love themselves, judging not that they be not judged, and if they persist doing unto others with condemnation, contempt and bile then they should expect others to do the same unto them.

ideas.time.com...

Here is an interesting article for debate, what I see is a backlash against the PC police.

You can't force people to accept you, just as I cannot make someone like me, I know atheist that have issues with certain lifestyles.

Even if one doesn't see it as sin they may still see it as unnatural.

Do you silence people with differing opinions?

That in a nutshell is what is making people angry.

reply to post by Phage

There it is. Equating pedophiles with homosexuals. Perfect.

You know that children cannot be consenting. Right?

No. It isn't equating them and these are the same lame arguments brought up in the glaad/culture wars thread by gryphon. If you are going to go down the same road, please spare the non-sequitur nonsense about the history of consent ages and all the rest of the off-point stuff.

This is equating the means to acceptance for both and the PC roots of those means. And part of that methodology is attacking the mores and laws in place. You know that they are attacking the notion of whether children indeed can consent, don't you?

They are also lobbying hard for it to be classified a sexual orientation. It already made it into the DSM as such, but the protest from those hateful pedophobe Christians and such got it taken back out. But it is only a temporary victory as it's going to keep coming back.

Pedophilia has been widely viewed as a psychological disorder triggered by early childhood trauma. Now, many experts see it as a biologically rooted condition that does not change — like a sexual orientation — thanks largely to a decade of research by Dr. James Cantor at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

www.thestar.com...

The point is that because of the predominance of the PC playbook, there's probably no way to stop this shift because the rules of the road have already been laid down.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Hey, I already linked that. Do I have to have a pop quiz? I'll do it, I will.

Benevolent Heretic
Phil ought to mind his own business and stop spouting hateful garbage about other people.

He is as much a sinner as ANYONE else. He is as guilty as ANY gay person. He should be looking in the mirror at the speck in his own eye.

Correct. In the speech Phil gave, posted by Phage, (but edited out by the video makers), as I already stated, Phil, in his own words, admitted that he was as much of a sinner as anyone else.
In that speech he's offering forgiveness. The same that he received from God.

And since you were raised in Christianity, you recognize that in order to be forgiven for being a sinner, one has to be guilty of sin. So... forgiveness is only available to people who do wrong. Which means that pointing out how someone is wrong is a means of leading to forgiveness.

However, this has no bearing on you saying Phil should mind his own business. Because (in the quote that started the controversy) Phil was asked his opinion on what sin was -- ie he was asked his personal business. And that other person wrote an article sharing it with the public.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

but the protest from those hateful pedophobe Christians and such got it taken back out.

Right. Christians did it.
Got it.

But you seem to have missed the point. Allowing consenting adults to have sex with each other is not the same as allowing adults to have sex with children. To bring up pedophilia in the same context as homosexuality is nothing but homophobia.

reply to post by Phage

Thank you Phage, I appreciate that.
I agree fully that a balanced court is in the people's best interests.
I only hope that the members of the highest court are the best thinking individuals that we have available. I am not comfortable believing that they are.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Complains about the "PC playbook" then proceeds to single out a group of people and reminds us that we have to save the children from them, by stopping some other group.

What?