Duck Dynasty in Hot Water

[Jan Van]

I understand that Barack and Michelle will not be attending the opening ceremonies of the winter Olympics in Sochi, probably as a protest against Validmir Putin's stance on gay rights and that our official entourage will include two openly gay athletes as a kind of in-your-face gesture.

How do we know it's in protest? I read somewhere that the last time a president visited winter olympics was Dubya in Salt Lake City, 2002

[Mountaineer]

I understand that Barack and Michelle will not be attending the opening ceremonies of the winter Olympics in Sochi, probably as a protest against Validmir Putin's stance on gay rights and that our official entourage will include two openly gay athletes as a kind of in-your-face gesture.

How do we know it's in protest? I read somewhere that the last time a president visited winter olympics was Dubya in Salt Lake City, 2002

Yep,  that is the last time the US had a president; and who thought it could not get any worse. 

[Jan Van]

Yep,  that is the last time the US had a president; and who thought it could not get any worse. 

Won't get any better as long as we keep voting for the GopDem party.


Edit: Hmmm, maybe i'll start using that as an expletive, like, "What are those GOPDEMMED politicians doing this time???"

[RuralEngineer]

In other words, it took their PR folks 9 days to craft a statement that they felt said just the right amount of nothing that everyone could claim victory and A&E could continue making money.

Of course, A&E could have decided that Phil was entitled to his opinion in the first place, avoided the whole mess and issued essentially this exact same press release.  But I guess that wouldn't have been dumb and/or painful enough for these idiot masochists.

[ns2]

I really couldn't care less about Mr. Robertson's re-reinstatement as I never watch the show but I'll take a smack-down of bullying groups like GLAAD or Jesse Jackson and his grievance machine any day.

[MediumTex]

That was entertaining. 

I guess.

But that was the whole point, right?

***

BTW, I think it's fine if someone wants to be gay or just IS gay.  What's a little odd is the idea that someone's sexual orientation ought to be part of the national conversation in the first place.  Unless someone is holding himself out as an expert on heterosexuality, the fact that he is gay is of little to no interest to me.

The one thing that bugs me about all of the "gay talk" on television is that it causes my kids to ask awkward questions that I'm not really ready to talk to them about yet.  It's hard to have "the gay talk" when you haven't even had "the straight talk" yet.

[ns2]

The one thing that bugs me about all of the "gay talk" on television is that it causes my kids to ask awkward questions that I'm not really ready to talk to them about yet.  It's hard to have "the gay talk" when you haven't even had "the straight talk" yet.

Tell me about it. My 17 year old adopted granddaughter just told me she's bisexual. I guess no more sleepovers at the girfriend's house now.

[Pointedstick]

One interesting side effect of the social acceptance of non-heterosexuality is that I think it exacerbates the real phenomenon of sexual confusion as kids are just figuring themselves out. It's pretty natural for kids and teenagers to be sexually confused for a while, but nowadays you're expected to have everything figured out by the time you're 15, it seems. So if you ever thought a member of your gender was really hot then OMG maybe you're gay!!!!

I have a female friend whose boyfriend thought he was gay until he met her… surprise surprise, suddenly he's straight as an arrow!

[Libertarian666]

The one thing that bugs me about all of the "gay talk" on television is that it causes my kids to ask awkward questions that I'm not really ready to talk to them about yet.  It's hard to have "the gay talk" when you haven't even had "the straight talk" yet.

Tell me about it. My 17 year old adopted granddaughter just told me she's bisexual. I guess no more sleepovers at the girfriend's house now.

I'm so out of touche I didn't even know you could adopt grandchildren. 

[moda0306]

The one thing that bugs me about all of the "gay talk" on television is that it causes my kids to ask awkward questions that I'm not really ready to talk to them about yet.  It's hard to have "the gay talk" when you haven't even had "the straight talk" yet.

Tell me about it. My 17 year old adopted granddaughter just told me she's bisexual. I guess no more sleepovers at the girfriend's house now.

I'm so out of touche I didn't even know you could adopt grandchildren. 

Only straight couples can.

[ns2]

I'm so out of touche I didn't even know you could adopt grandchildren. 

In case I made it sound confusing, she was originally my granddaughter but I adopted her because her parents weren't doing anything to support her and I couldn't even get health insurance for her. So I went to court and had their parental rights terminated. In Florida the right of adoption automatically goes to grandparents in that case - not necessarily true elsewhere I believe.

So now she is legally my daughter and her father is legally her brother and her cousins are legally her nephews. A very interesting family, don't you think?

[annieB]

Oh my!!

[Libertarian666]

I'm so out of touche I didn't even know you could adopt grandchildren. 

In case I made it sound confusing, she was originally my granddaughter but I adopted her because her parents weren't doing anything to support her and I couldn't even get health insurance for her. So I went to court and had their parental rights terminated. In Florida the right of adoption automatically goes to grandparents in that case - not necessarily true elsewhere I believe.

So now she is legally my daughter and her father is legally her brother and her cousins are legally her nephews. A very interesting family, don't you think?

That is legally weird but understandable now that you explain it.

[Lowe]

Sometimes, I silence some of my more controversial opinions in respect of certain people in my family or group of friends.  I certainly think that telling anyone that they're living a life of sin, and will burn eternally in hell, is something that, while possibly true, is almost universally disrespectful.  Even if something is technically true (which I'm not for a second acknowledging here), one still has to decide how to "spread the word."

I can't tell if this is a hypothetical situation.  It stands to reason that if you believe in hell, and you see your relatives are heading there, and do nothing, you don't respect or love them at all.

In fact you hate them utterly, because not only do you not intervene for their souls, but you stick around to watch their sins.  Ironically would make you a hell-bound sinner yourself.

...

Not that I believe in hell or god.  Those are absurd but horrifying stories made up to scare defenseless children into tithing for the rest of their lives.  For the sake of clarity I chimed in.

[MediumTex]

I can't tell if this is a hypothetical situation.  It stands to reason that if you believe in hell, and you see your relatives are heading there, and do nothing, you don't respect or love them at all.

In fact you hate them utterly, because not only do you not intervene for their souls, but you stick around to watch their sins.

This was the rationale for the Inquisition, right?

It's a difficult problem to sort through if you find yourself constrained by a certain set of relatively inflexible beliefs.

In past centuries, for example, let's say that you were depressed but didn't want to commit suicide because that would mean you were going to Hell.  Instead, you would just murder a child (who would get into Heaven under the "not old enough to go to Hell" exception) and then you could repent for the murder and basically outsource your suicide to the state in the form of your eventual execution for murdering the child, which technically meant that you weren't committing suicide.  That way everyone gets to go to Heaven (you and the child you murdered). 

Simple, right?

Read more about this suicide strategy here.

[Benko]

In past centuries, for example, let's say that you were depressed but didn't want to commit suicide because that would mean you were going to Hell.  Instead, you would just murder a child (who would get into Heaven under the "not old enough to go to Hell" exception)

From MT's link:  "Back in August NPR’s “This American Life”? did a piece on death and loopholes "

Because NPR is an unbiased source of information regarding things having to do with religion (and history thereof).

[MediumTex]

In past centuries, for example, let's say that you were depressed but didn't want to commit suicide because that would mean you were going to Hell.  Instead, you would just murder a child (who would get into Heaven under the "not old enough to go to Hell" exception)

From MT's link:  "Back in August NPR’s “This American Life”? did a piece on death and loopholes "

Because NPR is an unbiased source of information regarding things having to do with religion (and history thereof).

That story on "This American Life" was really interesting.  That's where I first heard it.

NPR is obviously far from unbiased, and the staff of "This American Life" are mostly elitist liberals, but many of their shows are still very good. 

[ns2]

This could get a lot more interesting than Duck Dynasty.

http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2013/12/3 ... assistant/

Is Aaron Rogers, quarterback of the Green Bay Packers gay?

I'm guessing yes. If you follow football you might have heard that a major NFL star player was going to be coming out of the closet before the start of the season and everyone would be shocked. It didn't happen but now that I'm hearing it was Aaron Rogers but he changed his mind I'm not that surprised.

Personally, I like Aaron Rogers and I like watching him play and I don't really care if he's gay but I'm not sure how I'd feel seeing him openly hug his boyfriend after hoisting the Lombardi trophy, let alone his teammates (actually, there are photos of him doing almost that which is why I don't doubt it).

Like I said, this could get interesting.

[Benko]

That story on "This American Life" was really interesting.  That's where I first heard it.

NPR is obviously far from unbiased, and the staff of "This American Life" are mostly elitist liberals, but many of their shows are still very good.

NPR has some very interesting and fun shows (if I recall correctly, it has been awhile).  However I agree that they are biased.  Given that many liberals are atheist/anti-religion (not necess the same thing) if I heard a story on NPR about some horrible thing done by/in the name of religion I would want to verify it with some other source before I took it as fact.  But that's just me.

[Lowe]

Under scripture the Inquisition is not only justifiable, but obligatory.  It is evil to stop short of any means necessary to redeem sinners, even torturing them to death.  God didn't include a provision for chickening out.

...

I have no doubt the indirect suicides happened as described in MT's link.  European history abounds with examples of the horror of organized religion. Did you know that entire villages were sometimes caught up in religious frenzies, in which they danced to exhaustion, and often death?

Phil Robertson is an atheist compared to any believer from more than four hundred years ago, and a coward as well.  Were he a true believer, he would be killing homosexuals, as commanded in Leviticus, not bad mouthing them in GQ.  For whatever consequences he might suffer in this life, he would be more than compensated in heaven.

[Mountaineer]

Under scripture the Inquisition is not only justifiable, but obligatory.  It is evil to stop short of any means necessary to redeem sinners, even torturing them to death.  God didn't include a provision for chickening out.

...

I have no doubt the indirect suicides happened as described in MT's link.  European history abounds with examples of the horror of organized religion. Did you know that entire villages were sometimes caught up in religious frenzies, in which they danced to exhaustion, and often death?

Phil Robertson is an atheist compared to any believer from more than four hundred years ago, and a coward as well.  Were he a true believer, he would be killing homosexuals, as commanded in Leviticus, not bad mouthing them in GQ.  For whatever consequences he might suffer in this life, he would be more than compensated in heaven.

All I can say is "Thanks be to God for Martin Luther et. al. and the Reformation" for getting getting back to what the Scriptures actually say rather than depending on what corrupt church leader(s) said the Scriptures said.  I hope that all who have based their understanding of the Christian religion on a rewritten history or hearsay seek to find the real truth rather than continuing to propagate mistruths and/or misunderstandings.  The Old Testament is a story of how screwed up man becomes when left to his own devices and shows how desperately a Savior was needed.  Thankfully, Jesus came.  I pray for those who actually believe the Scriptures advocate killing homosexuals ... homosexuals are sinners just like all the rest of us and need to repent and ask for God's mercy, just like the rest of us.  Unrepentent sinners will face a very bad ending, regardless of the particular flavor of sin they have done. 

... Mountaineer

[Lowe]

Sorry, I just cited the law of god, which commands the death of homosexuals.  Christ came to fulfill the law, so it stands, as does your disobedience to the lord.

[Mountaineer]

Sorry, I just cited the law of god, which commands the death of homosexuals.  Christ came to fulfill the law, so it stands, as does your disobedience to the lord.

Here is a good close to the whole Duck Dynasty sensationalism:

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=34693

... Mountaineer

[ns3]

Under scripture the Inquisition is not only justifiable, but obligatory.  It is evil to stop short of any means necessary to redeem sinners, even torturing them to death.  God didn't include a provision for chickening out.

...

I have no doubt the indirect suicides happened as described in MT's link.  European history abounds with examples of the horror of organized religion. Did you know that entire villages were sometimes caught up in religious frenzies, in which they danced to exhaustion, and often death?

Phil Robertson is an atheist compared to any believer from more than four hundred years ago, and a coward as well.  Were he a true believer, he would be killing homosexuals, as commanded in Leviticus, not bad mouthing them in GQ.  For whatever consequences he might suffer in this life, he would be more than compensated in heaven.

All I can say is "Thanks be to God for Martin Luther et. al. and the Reformation" for getting getting back to what the Scriptures actually say rather than depending on what corrupt church leader(s) said the Scriptures said.  I hope that all who have based their understanding of the Christian religion on a rewritten history or hearsay seek to find the real truth rather than continuing to propagate mistruths and/or misunderstandings.  The Old Testament is a story of how screwed up man becomes when left to his own devices and shows how desperately a Savior was needed.  Thankfully, Jesus came.  I pray for those who actually believe the Scriptures advocate killing homosexuals ... homosexuals are sinners just like all the rest of us and need to repent and ask for God's mercy, just like the rest of us.  Unrepentent sinners will face a very bad ending, regardless of the particular flavor of sin they have done. 

... Mountaineer

The Old Testament most certainly does command capital punishment for male homosexuality....

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This is one of the many things that one who believes in the Bible as the infallible Word of God has to come to grips with. Also, the genocide of the inhabitants of Palestine.

I eventually resolved this conflict myself by concluding that these are simply NOT the commandments of God.

As for the Inquisition, I haven't read much about it but I've been learning in bits and pieces lately that it was originally a state-sponsored thing and that the Church got involved mainly to mitigate it. Not sure how true it is but maybe the Church is getting a bad rap on this one.

[Mountaineer]

Sorry, I just cited the law of god, which commands the death of homosexuals.  Christ came to fulfill the law, so it stands, as does your disobedience to the lord.

Lowe, you seem to have a different understanding of the Scriptures than do I.  In my opinion, one must understand verses taken in context and have an understanding of the original languages, especially for difficult passage interpretation.  In short, a good understanding of the purposes of the Law and a good understanding of the difference between Law and Gospel is essential.  The main emphasis of the Law is to make us all (100% of all humans) understand that fullfilling God's Law on our own is impossible and that we desparately need a Savior.  So you are right, I am disobedient to the Lord, as is every human on the planet because we cannot perfectly keep God's Law; that is why we are all sinners.  Thanks be to God for Jesus!

Here are a couple of references that may help us understand why homosexuals are not required, by God, to be killed after Christ came to earth. 

... Mountaineer

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... abolish-it