Is Affirming Christianity Still Relevant? (Duck Dynasty topic)
The article is written by a progressive democrat, I know, but in spite of that she still brings up some very good points on the issue. The article is definitely worth a read.
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
What he said wasn't bigotry. He asserted his religious beliefs. He didn't advocate the persecution of anyone, or the exclusion of anyone.
I strongly suspect that, in his flavor of Christianity, there's no such thing as "A homosexual", just homosexual behavior.
He may be wrong, but being wrong is not automatically bigotry.
Last I check a person could have an opinion right? Doesn't mean you have to like it. If you don't, then don't deal with them. Simple as that.
Seems rather one sided friend. Sorta like that baker in CO who is being forced to serve gays, but I'm certain that if he were refused something based on his Christian beliefs that would be OK??? You know, like not endorsing a lifestyle he feels is abhorrent to his personal beliefs by providing them with a service that furthers the act he finds abhorrent?????
That is wrong on so many levels. Just like you constant, incessant badgering us with your chosen lifestyle. I don't care what you do, but you don't have to parade it in every post and thread. I don't and you should have the same grace.
Run around and cry bigotry all you want, everyone has a right to choose who they associate with, do business with, and what they endorse with their money.
If we Christians reject your lifestyle based on scripture, we have a right to do so. You can't force us to accept it. It is not a special right and there are no special privileges enumerated īn the constitution for any sex other than male and female. Exactly the number created by God.
Get over it.
http://www.amren.com/news/2012/12/even-i...
This is why I don't respect that source.
WE had slavery here in the US 150 years ago. We don't today. If you were actually knowledgeable about scripture instead of regurgitating what someone less knowledgeable than yourself claim, we could discuss it.
Go read the bible, understand that 50% of it is history, 30% of it is poetic and 20% of it is prophetic. On of the passages of scripture instructs believers to "study to show themselves approved, a workman not needing to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth".
It's nothing that you have experienced before in any other book and here you're trying to discuss a subject you don't comprehend is frankly, embarrassing to see.
ˈbigətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries
1.
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Maph, you are being bigoted against Phil. Intolerant of his difference of opinion.
Personally I'm okay with intolerance...otherwise you're doing nothing more than allowing someone to silence you.
maybe we should examine modern society to see what's changed.
And stopping Christians from voicing their beliefs is intolerance.
What incredibly racist things did he say?
Keep it up. Keep confusing a moral code with bigotry. Keep insisting that any tolerance less than full acceptance is hate...
Pretty soon your prophesy will fulfill itself.
But anyway, the Bible says a lot of things, and I guarantee you that there is no modern Christian who is completely consistent in following all of its teachings, simply for the reason that many of its teachings are impracticable and cannot be followed in modern society.
Please watch this:
http://www.upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-...
You say that GLAAD came across as a bully, but I strongly disagree. From my perspective, they were standing up to a bully by criticizing a man who used his fame to spread hate.
I do think the tactics could have been better, and there should have been a greater focus on the incredibly racist things he said as well, and that there may have been more success had that approach been taken. But public criticism, even if it didn't go as well as it could have, was still the right decision.
But regardless, what Phil Robertson got was really nothing more than a slap on the wrist. His suspension only lasted like a week or so, and happened to fall between the show's seasons anyway, so he won't be absent from any episodes.
In the end, I do think people need to realize that freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom to say whatever you want without consequences or without criticism. A private media network can still censor you (and reprimand or fire you, if you happen to work for them) and the public can still criticize you. All freedom of speech means is that you can't be censored by the government or thrown in jail for the things you say. The government never got involved with the controversy, and therefore Phil's freedom of speech was never infringed.
You folks don't get it - Phil did not slip up when he said what he did, he said what we know to be true. A bit crudely, but still consistent with Christian doctrine and biblical passages.
Things we do live by, not opinion, not some squishy everything is a shade of grey, might be true, might be wrong thing.
There are things in this life that are absolutes. For Christians who believe that the bible is the word of God, there is right and wrong, good and bad. Phil said it true.
Every post you seem to make has this one subject. As I told my children, there is much more to life than what goes on below the belt. Expand your horizons malph!