• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Status
Not open for further replies.
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Why don't they have fits over people eating shellfish? When I see Christians picketing in front of Red Lobster with the same zeal they display when protesting Gays, then I will agree. But, until then, I call their protestation nothing but hate speech disguised as religion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the Robertsons are so bible-loving, why don't the men cut their hair? (see corinthians)
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Why don't they have fits over people eating shellfish? When I see Christians picketing in front of Red Lobster with the same zeal they display when protesting Gays, then I will agree. But, until then, I call their protestation nothing but hate speech disguised as religion.
Click to expand...
Why should they picket over something that is no longer required?
You argument is ridiculous.



Sex in Leviticus
It's part of a much broader teaching in Scripture.
Christopher J.H. Wright
[ posted 7/22/2013 8:01AM ]
Editor's note: This article appeared as a sidebar to Wright's "Learning to Love Leviticus," part of CT's July-August cover story on Grappling with the God of Two Testaments.

The law in Leviticus prohibiting sexual intercourse between men (18:22) comes in the same book that contains laws prohibiting foods that Israelites were to consider unclean (chapter 11). We eat shellfish today without any moral problems, so why should we treat this sex law as morally binding? Haven't we outgrown all of that Levitical law anyway? Christians who insist on the sexual laws of the Bible are being inconsistent in not keeping all the other laws too. So goes one line of argument in modern debates about homosexuality. To this, three things must be said.

First, as I note in "Learning to Love Leviticus," we no longer keep the food laws because the separation they symbolized (between Israelites and Gentiles in the Old Testament) is no longer relevant in Christ. But the ethical principles embodied in Old Testament laws on sexual relations (positive and negative) remain constant and are reaffirmed by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament.

Second, the argument would reduce the Bible to absurdity. The Ten Commandments come in the same book that commanded Israel not to climb the mountain. If we are told that we cannot with consistency disapprove of same-sex activity unless we also stop eating shellfish, then we should not condemn theft and murder unless we also ban mountaineering.

Third, and most important, the biblical discussion of homosexual behaviour begins not in Leviticus, as if the whole argument depends on how we interpret a single Old Testament law. When Jesus was asked about divorce, he would not let the argument get stuck around the interpretation of the law. Instead he took the issue back to Genesis. That is where we find the foundational biblical teaching about God's purpose in creating human sexual complementarity—and it is very rich. It reflects God—male and female together being made in God's image—and it provides the necessary togetherness and equality in the task of procreating and ruling the earth. This God-given complementarity is so important that God explains how it is to be joyfully celebrated and exercised—the union of marriage that is heterosexual, monogamous, nonincestuous, socially visible and affirmed, physical, and permanent (Gen. 2:24, endorsed by Jesus).

On that foundation, the rest of the Bible—in the laws and narratives, in the prophets and wisdom literature, in the Gospels and Epistles—consistently teaches that any other kind of sexual intercourse falls short of God's best will and plan for human flourishing. (And we should note that the Bible has far more to say about all forms of disordered heterosexual sexual activity, including nonmarital and extramarital, than its prohibition of same-sex intercourse).

The law in Leviticus, then, must not be isolated, stuck alongside shellfish, and mocked into irrelevance. It is one small piece of a much larger and consistent pattern of whole-Bible teaching about the gift and joy and purpose and disciplines of our sexuality.​


Sex in Leviticus | Christianity Today​
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

paddymcdougall said:
Exactly. If the Robertsons are so bible-loving, why don't the men cut their hair? (see corinthians)
Click to expand...
You need to start thinking about the times that was written in.
Jesus had long hair, did he not?
His hair would have been considered short as compared to a woman's ass/waist hair length during the time.

So Phil's hair would be considered the appropriate length.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Maybe, but I don't hide behind Christ when I do it. I freely admit that I'm an asshole to religious zealots.

Taking another tack. How's these apples? Lets assume a homosexual believes all your Biblical nonsense. Is it not evil, actually doing violence onto him, to badger him over something intrinsic in him, a part of his being which he cannot change, saying it will send him to Hell? And, before you respond, that same Bible which casts homosexual acts as sin will also condemn you to hell for eating shellfish and a host of other things. But, yet, your arrogance lets you excuse violating those protocols while giving the Gays no quarter.

It's ridiculous. And, that is why I say Phil is a moron hiding behind his religion.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you hide behind science, because you didn't do the science you just believe. You're hiding behind the scientists.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
If he said that, A&E would not have suspended him. Is being disingenuous part of your religion?
Click to expand...

He can't condemn anyone to Hell, only God can do that.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

American said:
Okay, so you hide behind science, because you didn't do the science you just believe. You're hiding behind the scientists.
Click to expand...

Not really. Science does not explain origin of life, yet alone all of existence. I hide behind nothing. I stand exposed to forces, both known and unknown, staring at the random nature of cold hard reality without the comfort of make believe.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

American said:
He can't condemn anyone to Hell, only God can do that.
Click to expand...
He clearly stated that homosexual sex was 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.”
Click to expand...

Not much gray there.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
He clearly stated that homosexual sex was sinful.



Not much gray there.
Click to expand...
Yes he did, he believes that's what the Bible says and believes it.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Not really. Science does not explain origin of life, yet alone all of existence. I hide behind nothing. I stand exposed to forces, both known and unknown, staring at the random nature of cold hard reality without the comfort of make believe.
Click to expand...

You stand exposed to unknown forces? Like maybe God.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

American said:
Yes he did, he believes that's what the Bible says and believes it.
Click to expand...
Does he believe and/or do these things too?
Matthew 11:19
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: 12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21
1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 23:1
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Mark 7:25-27
10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare [2] her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house...
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

American said:
You stand exposed to unknown forces? Like maybe God.
Click to expand...
If there is a God, he's not the one described in the Bible. There is enough error in the Bible to confirm that it's mostly myth.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Why don't they have fits over people eating shellfish? When I see Christians picketing in front of Red Lobster with the same zeal they display when protesting Gays, then I will agree. But, until then, I call their protestation nothing but hate speech disguised as religion.
Click to expand...

I see, so you calamity deem yourself arbiter of all protestations....Can you post a number or something for people to contact, you know, to make sure they are just in their disagreement of anything?
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

TheNextEra said:
No, but it does show inconsistency on both sides. The same people that are outraged by this, weren't outraged by those on the left that have been fired for speaking their mind and beliefs.

I have no problem with someone holding the opinion that someone shouldn't be fired for speaking their belief as long as it is consistent. Likewise I have no problem with those that believe a company has the right to fire someone if their speak harms the company. I just think incredible biasness gets in the way when its someone on the left or right that does it and there are people on both sides that are hypocrites about it.
Click to expand...

Well, its just an assumption that any singel person, or a group or persons, is inconsistent on the issue.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

notquiteright said:
Typical CON Quibble... :roll:

He was asked 'What in your mind is sinful' the simple Christian answer is 'anything against the teachings from the Good Book'.

But Phil seems to have an axe to grind so he got to it. Murder is usually a biggie to most Christian folks I know, I live in the bible belt bigtime, but ol' Phil must be butt hurt from some part of his drunken, druggie days.

You can't be THAT lazy! The 'apology' of sorts is all over the interwebz, go to HuffPo if no place else. Now that there is a Redneck uprising, he is doing his Gandalf imitation and a hearty, 'You shall not pass!' :doh
Click to expand...

Typical lib quibble. If he had listed everything he thought was sin, they probably would have had to edit out a great bit of it for time, if nothing else.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

j-mac said:
I see, so you calamity deem yourself arbiter of all protestations....Can you post a number or something for people to contact, you know, to make sure they are just in their disagreement of anything?
Click to expand...

That's a weak comeback for explaining whey protesting Gays is OK but Red Lobster gets to sell crabs and rock lobsters to their hearts content.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
Right. Because all you Jesus people know the one true God while the other 6 Billion people are simply lost. :roll:
Click to expand...

You just proved my point, Jane. You are simply ignorant when it comes to faith.

Perhaps when you hit rock bottom at some point in your life, you too will see the light.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Excon said:
Why should they picket over something that is no longer required?
You argument is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

To many of us, the proscriptions against gays/lesbians are as ridiculous as those against long hair/shellfish.

But we're not the ones swearing the bible is true except when we don't like a piece of it.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

j-mac said:
Ok, I'll bite....Please show me that condemnation to hell....I missed it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother. Jane doesn't want to understand the teachings of the Bible, only spit on those who do.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

mac said:
Typical lib quibble. If he had listed everything he thought was sin, they probably would have had to edit out a great bit of it for time, if nothing else.
Click to expand...

Well, in reading the articles "author" intent throughout it seems that when not mocking him, he was setting him up. So, I don't think it really matters what Phil said, it wasn't going to be a favorable interview in any event.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

paddymcdougall said:
To many of us, the proscriptions against gays/lesbians are as ridiculous as those against long hair/shellfish.

But we're not the ones swearing the bible is true except when we don't like a piece of it.
Click to expand...
To many that do not know, yes. Understandable.

But that really isn't what is happening.
The shellfish proscriptions no longer exist.
And the long hair passage is being wrongly interpreted/used.
But the homosexual passages within the belief are not.
It is a sin. It is an abomination.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

calamity said:
That's a weak comeback for explaining whey protesting Gays is OK but Red Lobster gets to sell crabs and rock lobsters to their hearts content.
Click to expand...

You saying this after being provided the information that explains the difference is ... well, quite absurd.
It just shows that you do not care about the truth.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

j-mac said:
Well, in reading the articles "author" intent throughout it seems that when not mocking him, he was setting him up. So, I don't think it really matters what Phil said, it wasn't going to be a favorable interview in any event.
Click to expand...

Maybe, still, Phil's no idiot...he knew what he was doing.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

Rocketman said:
A&E realizing their error in bending to a small percentage of whiners has already reinstated him
Click to expand...

Exactly as I predicted in post #304 in this thread. A&E used the MSM foaming at the mouth, despartate for a story, as free advertising to fire up their audience for a Christmas time Duck Dynasty marathon.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

paddymcdougall said:
To many of us, the proscriptions against gays/lesbians are as ridiculous as those against long hair/shellfish.

But we're not the ones swearing the bible is true except when we don't like a piece of it.
Click to expand...

Who's doing that? Like so many other things, there are three ways that the words, and stories in the bible are interpreted.

1. in the sentence - ie: It means what it says, and says what it means.

2. In a parable - ie: a story meant to teach a lesson connected with the outcome of the story.

3. In the context - ie: the larger message intended through the paragraph, chapter, or letter.

And there are two sections of the bible.

1. The old testament - That is the entire first part of the book that is the history there for our learning, but not in every day practical use, IOW, I don't think that we hear of burning bushes, or bolts of lightning striking down sinners today.

2. The New testament - these are the witness accounts of Jesus among other things that Christians strive to emulate today. Knowing that Jesus died on the cross for our sins doesn't mean that we have the authority, or could possibly judge others, I know I can't.

But to say that someones faith is "foolish", "moronic", a "fairy tale", or any other insult, degradation that those without faith hurl at those that do believe is really nothing more than fear of those that believe. So, I don't harbor ill toward them, and can only shake my head and offer a prayer to God, that some day they too will know the love, and peace that God offers....Oh, and notice everyone that I said God, and not religion. I personally was raised a Catholic, complete with being an alter boy, and serving in the church's sponsored boy scout troop. Today, I don't really follow a regimented religion, but I do believe in God, and think that the bible brings great solace, and peace to a great many people, I think that's a good thing.
 
re: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much [W:1111]

mac said:
Maybe, still, Phil's no idiot...he knew what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Phil has nothing to be ashamed of, I think those that are twisting, and pulling his words out of context to smear him, and all Christians are the ones with the problem here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom