DDD - Duck Dynasty Debate (or Debacle, your POV)

[CHB]

Dec 28, 2013 13:19:06 GMT -6 baldy1 said:

Dec 28, 2013 11:01:58 GMT -6 novatiger said:

It's not ok because it shows plainly an attitude that Jim Crowe was ok. They were happy!

It's not simply reporting what he saw, by saying they were happy, he's justifying it.

It's attitudes like that that keep blacks at a lower status. That so many here think it's ok when the blacks I know universally think it's not ok shows how far the south still has to go.

I've got to tell you that as part of a minority myself that also faces discrimination, the open hate is easier to deal with than constant little attitudes like this. They wear on you and beat you down over time.

In the world I live in, I don't see blacks as being held at lower status. My attitude has been formed from my experiences, from what I see daily. In the corporate world, at my company there are as many black folks working in our upper management as there are whites. Truth. Folks aren't treated differently because of color at my office.

In my normal daily routine away from the office, I don't see mistreatment of blacks at the grocery store or in restaurants or at ball games or anywhere that I can recall. Heck, if a black person is mistreated today at a restaurant, it makes the news. Maybe you live in a racially divided area where such occurs daily and you see open acts of racism and think that's the norm everywhere but I can tell you it's not the norm in my world.

I'm not a black man, I don't know their experiences, I only know what my experiences are, and in my world from what I see daily, black folks around me aren't at a lower status, they aren't sitting around whining about how unfair life is nor is anyone trying to keep them down. I don't think that this attitude should be offensive or troublesome to anyone as it's the truth from what I have experienced firsthand In my world.

I have the same experiences. Does racism still exist? Sure it does, but it isn't to the extent that I believe some portray. Far too often racism is used as a crutch. Also racism is not just white on black. Don't be naive enough to think that there are not blacks that are racist against whites. One of my best friends growing up (also my college roommate) was black and I actually saw instances where his race helped him more than me being white. One of the biggest advantages he got was when it came to grants for school. He was able to get quite a bit more money than I was even though his family had more resources than mine.

As for Phil I think his comments are being made into something they are not. As for homosexuality he stated what he believed and what he believes the Bible says about it. I don't think he was preaching hate towards them. The race issue is being blown even more out of proportion as is usually the case.

[ehyou]

Nobody has matched my opinion, so the right answer hasn't been given yet. Keep trying.

[novatiger]

Dec 28, 2013 14:17:38 GMT -6 steve said:

Someone mentioned people being killed by Phil Robertson's words. That is ridiculous and I can't believe anyone is actually so misinformed as to suggest it. The truth is that someone has been killed in the name of any religion, minority, blah blah blah. There are wackos out there. That doesn't mean Phil Robertson supports them.

I could throw up a bunch of links but I think this one sums it up.

www.religioustolerance.org/hom_suic.htm

Assuming that external and internal homophobia is a main cause of suicide, we believe that churches can be conservatively assigned indirect responsibility for about 496 youth gay/lesbian suicides per year. This rate is greater than the witch genocide rate in Western Europe during the witch burning times in the late Middle Ages and Rennaisance.

This doesn't even consider those who commit suicide later in life or those who suffer lifelong depression. It also doesn't consider the anti-gay violence in Africa or the anti-pogrom in Russia. American evangelicals have been involved in both. I consider the blood of these kids to be on the hands of the anti-gay churches. As someone who preaches the anti-gay line, Phil shares in it.

I don't have to tolerate a doctrine that causes harm and severe mental anguish to those like me. I've seen too many men badly damaged by the "love" professed by preachers like Phil. They are too wrapped up in what they think 6 verses of the bible means to listen to real facts so the only alternative is to oppose when they speak publicaly.

It's worth noting that Alan Chamberlain this year admitted that no one in the Exodus program had changed their orientation, including himself. He apologized for the damage they had caused and closed up shop. The APA says that sexual orientation is fixed in men by the age of puberty. This destroys the argument that gays have a choice or can be changed. What excuse do conservative churches have to maintain their harmful doctrine?

[baldy1]

Dec 28, 2013 18:11:10 GMT -6 ehyou said:

Nobody has matched my opinion, so the right answer hasn't been given yet. Keep trying.

Now is the time when we pause and look over ehyou's shoulder to see if our answers are remotely close to correct.

[artvandelay NP]

only the Ents know the real answers in life.

[steve]

Well, now Phil Robertson is the cause of people not being able to deal with reality and committing suicide. That is an intriguing way to look at it, or you can assume that individuals are responsible for their own actions.

Phil was kind enough to provide the path to peace that he followed himself. That hardly makes him responsible for people that cannot cope with their own issues.

[novatiger]

You are the one that refuses to deal with reality, The reality that orientation is fixed and unchangable. The reality that attempting to change it can cause severe depression and suicide. The reality that Phil's brand of preaching creates hell on earth for many gays. The reality that preaching that gays are willfully disobedient to God's create an attitude that they are less than straight people and leads to bullying.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

All of this stands on how you understand 6 verses that MIGHT deal with homosexuality, as opposed to the over 300 that deal with heterosexuality.

We didn't choose and can't change our orientation, it's a biological trait. You do get to choose what you think the bible says about that. If you choose the path that creates harm to others, I pray God forgives you for that and sends you understanding instead.

I was raised in a conservative church and stayed in it most of my life. I was also tormented even though I never had sex with another man because I wanted to very much. The thought is the same as the act and that set a barrier between myself and God's love. It wasn't until I finally came out to myself that I really dug into those passages and found they didn't mean what my church had taught. That is when I could accept myself and truely open myself to God's love. The difference was staggering.

Phil thinks we are something broken to be fixed (this is apparent from the vagina stuff). We are not, at least in terms of our orientation. I have many sins I struggle to deal with. Being gay and in a long term monogamous relationship is not one of them. We are as God made us and desires us to be. If this were not true, the path to change would be open.

Phil's biggest crime to me is not that what he preaches is harmful (it is). It is that what he preaches separates gay people from God rather than bringing them to him.

[novatiger]

An example of the fear generated by the doctrine Phil preaches.

www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kyle-alagood/what-its-like-to-be-gay-i_b_4510918.html

[allend]

Dec 29, 2013 9:06:12 GMT -6 novatiger said:

An example of the fear generated by the doctrine Phil preaches.

www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kyle-alagood/what-its-like-to-be-gay-i_b_4510918.html

Nova, respectfully, it's not the "doctrine" of Christianity Phil preaches (he's repeating all he's ever known), its the Christianity that has been preached by most of Christianity and Catholicism since their earliest days.

Right/wrong? God only knows.

[novatiger]

Dec 29, 2013 9:14:08 GMT -6 allend said:

Dec 29, 2013 9:06:12 GMT -6 novatiger said:

An example of the fear generated by the doctrine Phil preaches.

www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kyle-alagood/what-its-like-to-be-gay-i_b_4510918.html

Nova, respectfully, it's not the "doctrine" of Christianity Phil preaches (he's repeating all he's ever known), its the Christianity that has been preached by most of Christianity and Catholicism since their earliest days.

Right/wrong? God only knows.

Actually, it's not. Homosexuality as a concept, that there are those who are inately attracted to the same sex, is only about 150 years old. The first appearance of the word homosexual in a bible translation was in 1948. It's impossible to condemn what you never knew existed.

When old understanding is shown to be wrong and harmful, it is changed. The bible clearly endorses slavery and provides rules for it. But we now know that teaching to be wrong. Let's see how far you get if you try enforce the full biblical teachings on women with your wife. This doctrine is wrong and harmful and more and more churches are realizing that.

If it were simply wrong, I'd be quiet. Because it causes harm, I will continue to condemn it.

[steve]

Whether you go by the example of the Bible or the example of nature, God has made it very clear. I know some will attempt to distort reality, and that is their right. Phil exercised his right to honestly answer a question about what he believes. He did not try to force anything upon anyone. It just seems that some feel they have the right to their belief and others only have that right if they agree.

The responsibility for someone committing suicide lies with the person that committed suicide. People are responsible for their own actions. If they cannot handle thought that they don't like, then they are obviously broken.

This is completely separate from people being harassed. That is where the police should step in. Your rights extend only to the point where they interfere with the rights of others. Harassing others is criminal and the person doing the harassing should be held accountable. The problem is, this is not what Phil did.

I also have an issue with people sharing God's word with those that do not want to hear. This is also harassment, but again, not what Phil was doing. He was asked his opinion an gave it, which every LGBT should be happy about. LGBT want tolerance, but will not have it while they remain intolerant to the views of others.

Everyone is different. Everyone has things about themselves that make life easy or harder. We just don't respond to it by blaming others. We are who we are and should be free to be who we are, up until the point where our rights interfere with the rights of others.

Phil and Miss Kay's beliefs allowed them to overcome a troubling time in their lives. Their beliefs allowed them to keep a family together, when it is very common these days for people to settle with being failures, and often repeatedly. For them to want to share their experience so that others can learn from it is heartwarming. The fact that their beliefs differ from some does not make those beliefs any less valid.

Yes, there are always those that will make excuses and blame others when things aren't the way that they prefer. Phil doesn't do that. He preaches love and acceptance. His description of blacks isn't racist. If anything he describes living among them and doesn't seem to have anything derogatory to say about them. Phil has attacked nobody. Those that are not accepting of his beliefs cannot say them same. That are just as intolerant and discriminatory as they accuse Phil of being and undeserving of tolerance.

[allend]

Dec 29, 2013 9:38:22 GMT -6 novatiger said:

Dec 29, 2013 9:14:08 GMT -6 allend said:

Nova, respectfully, it's not the "doctrine" of Christianity Phil preaches (he's repeating all he's ever known), its the Christianity that has been preached by most of Christianity and Catholicism since their earliest days.

Right/wrong? God only knows.

Actually, it's not. Homosexuality as a concept, that there are those who are inately attracted to the same sex, is only about 150 years old. The first appearance of the word homosexual in a bible translation was in 1948. It's impossible to condemn what you never knew existed.

When old understanding is shown to be wrong and harmful, it is changed. The bible clearly endorses slavery and provides rules for it. But we now know that teaching to be wrong. Let's see how far you get if you try enforce the full biblical teachings on women with your wife. This doctrine is wrong and harmful and more and more churches are realizing that.

If it were simply wrong, I'd be quiet. Because it causes harm, I will continue to condemn it.

For my education: Aren't there historical references to homosexuality in the Roman or Greek Civilizations?

Bible endorsing slavery?

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2013 13:34:25 GMT -6 allend said:

Dec 29, 2013 9:38:22 GMT -6 novatiger said:

Actually, it's not. Homosexuality as a concept, that there are those who are inately attracted to the same sex, is only about 150 years old. The first appearance of the word homosexual in a bible translation was in 1948. It's impossible to condemn what you never knew existed.

When old understanding is shown to be wrong and harmful, it is changed. The bible clearly endorses slavery and provides rules for it. But we now know that teaching to be wrong. Let's see how far you get if you try enforce the full biblical teachings on women with your wife. This doctrine is wrong and harmful and more and more churches are realizing that.

If it were simply wrong, I'd be quiet. Because it causes harm, I will continue to condemn it.

For my education: Aren't there historical references to homosexuality in the Roman or Greek Civilizations?

Bible endorsing slavery?

The PC popo will always try to use modern humanitarian values to re-shape the Biblical word. Christ warned of such false prophets

Spiritually, I have no problem with slavery. I do have a spiritual problem with masters treating slaves wrongly. From a humanitarian standpoint ...I certainly believe that slavery is wrong. I have no spiritual problem with slavery abolition because the Bible doesn't prohibit such.

Politically, I believe that there should be licensed civil unions (not redefined as marriages) that give committed, homosexual folks all the same spousal rights as committed, licensed married folks.  I don't have a spiritual problem with this concept because the Bible recognizes that Christians all live in different governments and the "rules of man" may not always agree with the Bible. The same American constitution that has allowed Christians the freedom to worship freely also allows many types of sin. I'll take the worship freedom and live with the accordingly fair rules of man.

Spiritually, the Bible goes to some length to specify the woman's place in the home. I personally have somewhat of a problem with this  .....BUT ..I'M GOING TO WORK EVERY DAY LIVE WITH THAT AXIOM AND NOT KILL MYSELF OVER IT. I also don't dare to try to re-shape scriptural understandings to meet today's humanitarian standards and make it convenient for me or anyone else.  Equal pay for equal work (or in earlier times ..land ownership or voting) are modern  American humanitarian standards that should be enforced, without question ...and ....the Bible doesn't prohibit such.

As of today, our constitution still allows folks to speak out against what each person perceives as spiritual abominations ..How long will it be before such won't be allowed? That answer depends on if the PC popo can be arrested. If they aren't ...don't be surprised how far this goes in the next 20 years. 

Sin is defined in the Bible. Christ commands Christians to: "Go into the world making disciples of all nations and ..to sin no more." Our constitution gives Christians the right to do this. Pointing out sin is mandatory when recruiting disciples.  The PC popo/media have slyly convinced most of America that pointing out "inconvenient sins" is "Hate". To a Christian ..pointing out sin is the opposite of Hate ..it is a step toward trying to show the sinner the way to heaven. Our constitution gives Christians this right.

Saying that "not protecting folks from suicide due to spiritual condemnation is akin to murder" is another skewed argument from the PC popo. SFC is right on mark with self accountability. Let's check the rationale of this similar argument: "Many folks have suffered extreme mental hardship and even suicide because the "evangelicals" condemn premarital sex, therefore the "evangelicals" need to be silenced from such actions. Such condemnations are akin to murder".  The argument doesn't carry so much weight does it? How about inserting "white lies" for "premarital sex"? ..even less weight. It's either a sin or it is not. If it is a sin then the problem lies with the sinner ....the Bible is pretty clear on this.

It is no secret how much I hate how the media aids the PC popo. I prefer that celebrities never use their voice to make any political statement of any type.  When they do, I typically boycott the celebrities that make political statements with which I disagree. Phil probably didn't intend to be thrust up on a soap box and I will give him a pass on that. I don't like that show and won't start watching it.  Whether I will boycott A&E or not has not been decided.

Now ...let's talk about how the media is so biased against old fat white guys. ...why isn't A&E firing folks over that?

[novatiger]

Dec 29, 2013 13:34:25 GMT -6 allend said:

Dec 29, 2013 9:38:22 GMT -6 novatiger said:

Actually, it's not. Homosexuality as a concept, that there are those who are inately attracted to the same sex, is only about 150 years old. The first appearance of the word homosexual in a bible translation was in 1948. It's impossible to condemn what you never knew existed.

When old understanding is shown to be wrong and harmful, it is changed. The bible clearly endorses slavery and provides rules for it. But we now know that teaching to be wrong. Let's see how far you get if you try enforce the full biblical teachings on women with your wife. This doctrine is wrong and harmful and more and more churches are realizing that.

If it were simply wrong, I'd be quiet. Because it causes harm, I will continue to condemn it.

For my education: Aren't there historical references to homosexuality in the Roman or Greek Civilizations?

Bible endorsing slavery?

I suggest googling ancient roman sexuality and you'll find some scholarly references. Basically, Roman citizens (free men) could penetrate whoever they wanted. The one prohibition was another Roman citizen. To be receptive was to lose your masculinity. Slaves, preferably young, and male prostitutes (also frequently slaves) were the typical receptive partners. These are inherently abusive situations and were probably more about social dominance than sexual release. This is what Paul would have seen and rightly condemned.

This does not mean these men were what we would think of as gay. Rather this is a situational homosexuality much like occurs in prisons or British boarding schools. When the situation is over they return to their baseline heterosexuality.

There were undoubtedly those who would be recognized as gay today, but they mostly stuck to the shadows because of the disapproval of being receptive. We only know of a few who were public figures such as Alexander and Hepaestion. But there was no concept of of orientation and this was not the common practice that Paul would have seen.

I'm firmly convinced that if you do not understand the culture and history of the time a book of the bible was written, you cannot understand what it is trying to teach you.

Slavery is all through the bible, complete with instructions on who you take as a slave and proper treatment. This was used prior to the civil war to defend slavery and after the war to defend slavery. Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, that was done by many of the same denominations that are now strongly ant-gay.

[novatiger]

I see people who are forgetting that language can be as abusive as striking someone physically. It can also be used to incite others to violence. Take responsibility of the abusive language used by your preachers and quit using the bible as a weapon. It's not.

I would suggest that your words and actions are responsible for creating more atheists than Christians.