Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?
-
jmogisadore;1555739 wrote:when you drag bestiality into his condemnation he demonstrates his hatred.
When asked to list what someone believes to be wrong or sin, nothing in the given list is seen as "equal" in the normal English language.
For instance, if someone asked me what types of things morally wrong I might give a list like this:
Lying, cheating on taxes, murder, adultery, etc.
Me giving a list does NOT equate lying with murder, but in your liberal logic it does.
He was asked a question, what does he consider sinful, and he gave a list. That is all he did. He did NOT say homosexuality was equal to beastiality.
Anyone who can understand the basics of the English language can see this.
It is the media that is saying he compared beastiality to homosexuality, anyone who can read and reads the original article/quote knows what he really said.
However, I would never expect isadore to actually read and use logic. -
TiernanOpenly Gay couple on A&Es "Storage Wars" claim anus's are tighter than vaginas. Kinduva reality show "STFU Phil".
-
jmog
He didn't mine the Bible, and you have no idea what you are talking about with respect to shellfish or pork. Those are Jewish only rules, not Christian.isadore;1555744 wrote:He mined the Bible for things to condemn. He chose not to condemn eating shellfish, pork or committing murder. He specifically chose those items putting them on the same level. You say he relied on First Corinthians but then to show his hatefulness toward Gays he put in bestiality.
Why the quotes around racist? He gave his endorsement to the despicable system of Jim Crow. He chose not to see the whites only signs and ignore the physical intimidation of blacks.
He gave a list (not all encompassing mind you) of things he considered sin.
You completely missed the part of the article where he said he loved everyone, where he would never treat anyone any different because of how they chose to live, and he left 'that' up to God. -
thavoice
Yeah, I read that. Fucking ******s, made me throw up a little!Tiernan;1555916 wrote:Openly Gay couple on A&Es "Storage Wars" claim anus's are tighter than vaginas. Kinduva reality show "STFU Phil". -
queencitybuckeye
I'll accept this. However, if I was going to make a point on sin and list some number of sins, bestiality wouldn't be in my top 20, 50, 100. Is this more of an issue where he's from, or was it intentionally provocative ("I'm not comparing the two, but...")?jmog;1555913 wrote: He was asked a question, what does he consider sinful, and he gave a list. That is all he did. He did NOT say homosexuality was equal to beastiality. -
jmog
Rainbows are not a physical thing that exists. Rainbows are what our eyes/brains depect when seeing light separated into its colors by a prism/water droplet.dlazz;1555749 wrote:Rainbows exist. God doesn't
Your comparison here with rainbows and God in interesting since Rainbows don't physically exist, it is a light 'trick' phenomenon.
Now, if you make the argument that light is a particle instead of a wave (Einstein level physics does not agree to which it is) then maybe you can make the assertation that rainbows physically exist, but they are still just light split, not a physical thing.
How do you know that God is not a 'physical' thing like a rainbow that our eyes/instruments just are not able to 'see' like we can the rainbow?
Your assertation is just opinion, not fact. -
jmog
Leviticus has near zero to do with Christianity. Leviticus is a historical account of the Jewish laws at that time. It was not a moral law written for all to live by (that was basically the 10 commandments at the time). The Jewish leaders in the time of Leviticus stretched the 10 Commandments into the Levitical laws.Heretic;1555800 wrote:Well, considering the average Christian (or virtually all of them) don't follow Leviticus to the letter of the law, you'd be correct.
As has been said before, sure, the stuff in there was essentially the laws of the time, but it's still in the Bible, so I'd think if people can ignore things about not suffering witches to live and not eating shellfish whenever, they can pick and choose other portions to follow or not, as well. I've already seen the "man's laws" rational for that stuff. So who's to say other parts aren't "man's laws", but only attributed to "God" in order to get people to follow them? After all, that has been the foundation of every religion throughout eternity. Man makes laws; man puts stamp of religion behind them; suddenly man-law is holy doctrine.
So that is why Christians don't follow Levitical Laws, because it has nothing to do with Christianity. Not because they are "picking and choosing". Leviticus is a historical account of the ancient Jewish laws. -
bases_loaded
It would be in the top 10 things if you were semi-quoting Corinthians 6:9-10queencitybuckeye;1555923 wrote:I'll accept this. However, if I was going to make a point on sin and list some number of sins, bestiality wouldn't be in my top 20, 50, 100. Is this more of an issue where he's from, or was it intentionally provocative ("I'm not comparing the two, but...")? -
jmog
If I hear one more person bring up "Well why don't Christians adhere to the Levitical Laws then" crap I'm going to screampmoney25;1555835 wrote:I love the sin is sin crowd. If that is true, how come I don't see people protesting Seafood restaurants for serving shellfish or barber shops for cutting your beard. How often do you hear opinions on people who wear clothes made of more than one fabric?
Also I'm about to delete my facebook account if one more post on free speech comes up.
.
That's about as smart as people who say "Well, people in the Bible had multiple wives, so the Bible is ok with having multiple wives". No, there are MANY historical parts of the Bible that are ONLY recording what happened at that time (maybe for a good moral reason like 'see, don't do this'). They are not there to say "this is what God is ok with and what he is not ok with" they are just recording what happened.
Leviticus is one of these books.
If you really want to know what the Bible says Christians should be doing and not be doing, I suggest you get a 'red letter' edition and read the things in red between Matthew and Acts. That's about it. -
jmog
No, no one would ever be hypocriticalse-alum;1555852 wrote:A&E is so utterly disgusted and upset about what Phil said, they will only run the episodes during these small time frames...
December 22 -- 5PM-4AM EST
December 23 -- 7PM-4AM EST
December 24 -- 6PM-9PM EST
December 25 -- 3:30PM-4AM EST[LEFT]
I'm ok with A&E taking a stance, but it should be an all or nothing stance. You either pull the show completely or stand by Phil and his beliefs. It's insanely hypocritical to condemn him, but continue airing the show and making money off it.
[/LEFT]
-
Fly4Fun
I think you're trying too hard... but I'll engage this line of thinking.jmog;1555924 wrote:Rainbows are not a physical thing that exists. Rainbows are what our eyes/brains depect when seeing light separated into its colors by a prism/water droplet.
Your comparison here with rainbows and God in interesting since Rainbows don't physically exist, it is a light 'trick' phenomenon.
Now, if you make the argument that light is a particle instead of a wave (Einstein level physics does not agree to which it is) then maybe you can make the assertation that rainbows physically exist, but they are still just light split, not a physical thing.
How do you know that God is not a 'physical' thing like a rainbow that our eyes/instruments just are not able to 'see' like we can the rainbow?
Your assertation is just opinion, not fact.
What is it that you consider to physically exist? From what you accurately described I'm not sure how rainbows don't physically exist? Not only are the water droplets in the air physical in nature, but light itself has a physical nature.
Generally I consider something to physically exist if it can be perceived by a human sense (or with the help of scientific instruments such as atoms or even cells, we can't see them with our eyes, but with different microscopes we can).
We don't know that God is not a physical thing. But we also don't know that he is a physical thing.
But when comparing the two, I'd say we have a hell of a lot more evidence that rainbows exist than God. People all around the world see rainbows. Only a "special" few have seen or otherwise "sensed" God (and I'm using special in a dubious way). -
jmog
DA is right, anyone upset on either side is retarded.Devils Advocate;1555903 wrote:I am offended by the people that are offended.
Phil had every right to say what he did.
A&E had every right to can him.
tsk tsk tsk... Where are the unions to protect you when you need them.
If you are upset by what he said, you are retarded.
If you are upset he was fired, you are retarded.
My company can fire me tomorrow for typing this post, and that is perfectly in their 'rights'. -
jmog
They should be FIRED for giving their OPINION that anus' are better than vaginas!Tiernan;1555916 wrote:Openly Gay couple on A&Es "Storage Wars" claim anus's are tighter than vaginas. Kinduva reality show "STFU Phil".
Oh wait, that would piss off GLAAD too, so we can't do that. -
queencitybuckeye
Not mentioned in either version of the bible I perused.bases_loaded;1555933 wrote:It would be in the top 10 things if you were semi-quoting Corinthians 6:9-10 -
bases_loaded
Its not possible that bestiality is listed as sin in a another part of the Bible and he lumped it in with the sins in Corinthians when asked for examples of fucking sins?queencitybuckeye;1555946 wrote:Not mentioned in either version of the bible I perused. -
jmog
So with your line of thinking then photons don't exist, light waves don't exist.Fly4Fun;1555938 wrote:I think you're trying too hard... but I'll engage this line of thinking.
What is it that you consider to physically exist? From what you accurately described I'm not sure how rainbows don't physically exist? Not only are the water droplets in the air physical in nature, but light itself has a physical nature.
Generally I consider something to physically exist if it can be perceived by a human sense (or with the help of scientific instruments such as atoms or even cells, we can't see them with our eyes, but with different microscopes we can).
We don't know that God is not a physical thing. But we also don't know that he is a physical thing.
But when comparing the two, I'd say we have a hell of a lot more evidence that rainbows exist than God. People all around the world see rainbows. Only a "special" few have seen or otherwise "sensed" God (and I'm using special in a dubious way).
With your line of thinking, atoms did not exist until electron microscopes were invented and we could detect/see them. Until that point they physically did not exist right?
Obviously this is absurd and atoms have always existed. Many other things scientists are 'sure' exist like gravitons, but they can't detect/see them, the Higgs Boson is a good example, etc.
With that in mind, is it not possible that "God" exists but we have not yet invented a device to detect/see 'it'? -
jmog
Correct, especially since that passage more deals with different sexual sins than the 'rest' like murder, etc.bases_loaded;1555933 wrote:It would be in the top 10 things if you were semi-quoting Corinthians 6:9-10 -
Heretic
Which would be great if the average person consistently recognized that. On this site, I've seen people quote Leviticus when it suits their purpose (to be honest, the main person I remember doing so was CatsGoneWild, whom most people looked at as a bit "derpy").jmog;1555931 wrote:Leviticus has near zero to do with Christianity. Leviticus is a historical account of the Jewish laws at that time. It was not a moral law written for all to live by (that was basically the 10 commandments at the time). The Jewish leaders in the time of Leviticus stretched the 10 Commandments into the Levitical laws.
So that is why Christians don't follow Levitical Laws, because it has nothing to do with Christianity. Not because they are "picking and choosing". Leviticus is a historical account of the ancient Jewish laws.
Maybe all y'all ought to take up the notion of Bible-pruning. I mean, considering that the book is supposed to be your holy scripture, I wouldn't know why you'd want to have all sorts of man-made hogwash inside it to detract from the stuff that serves a purpose in today's world and confuse the masses. -
queencitybuckeye
Possible, I'm just saying it isn't a "top of mind" sin if one were to contemporaneously call out a short list of sins.bases_loaded;1555952 wrote:Its not possible that bestiality is listed as sin in a another part of the Bible and he lumped it in with the sins in Corinthians when asked for examples of fucking sins? -
queencitybuckeye
Yet he pulled this specific one from somewhere else, as it is not mentioned in the referenced verses.jmog;1555954 wrote:Correct, especially since that passage more deals with different sexual sins than the 'rest' like murder, etc. -
queencitybuckeye
Yet he appeared to have pulled this specific sin from somewhere else, as it is not mentioned in the referenced verses, at least in the bibles I checked (two of the "big name" versions).jmog;1555954 wrote:Correct, especially since that passage more deals with different sexual sins than the 'rest' like murder, etc.
(Cue some dullard claiming QCB is defending bestiality). -
Heretic
You probably should add in that all of these "not any part of God" passages are mixed right in with Noah's Ark, the Ten Commandments, Egypt's trials, David and Goliath, the Walls of Jericho and any number of things that are essential Sunday school parables that all kids are taught in church. So, it goes to figure that if they heard those stories and wanted to learn more, they'd find themselves reading all this non-essential stuff and polluting their brain.jmog;1555935 wrote:If I hear one more person bring up "Well why don't Christians adhere to the Levitical Laws then" crap I'm going to scream.
That's about as smart as people who say "Well, people in the Bible had multiple wives, so the Bible is ok with having multiple wives". No, there are MANY historical parts of the Bible that are ONLY recording what happened at that time (maybe for a good moral reason like 'see, don't do this'). They are not there to say "this is what God is ok with and what he is not ok with" they are just recording what happened.
Leviticus is one of these books.
If you really want to know what the Bible says Christians should be doing and not be doing, I suggest you get a 'red letter' edition and read the things in red between Matthew and Acts. That's about it.
So sad when a faith practiced in many places around the world comes from such a broken book. -
Fly4Fun
I'm not incredibly well versed on the subject of light so I'll just have to try to remember. But generally most ideas in science are dubbed as theories as they best explain what's going on but can't be proven to be a fact. Basically admitting there is a chance something could be wrong, but a theory does a great job of describing the way the world works and backed up by testing.jmog;1555953 wrote:So with your line of thinking then photons don't exist, light waves don't exist.
With your line of thinking, atoms did not exist until electron microscopes were invented and we could detect/see them. Until that point they physically did not exist right?
Obviously this is absurd and atoms have always existed. Many other things scientists are 'sure' exist like gravitons, but they can't detect/see them, the Higgs Boson is a good example, etc.
With that in mind, is it not possible that "God" exists but we have not yet invented a device to detect/see 'it'?
I never said that they don't exist, as there have been experiments to try to observe the way light waves work.
You're assuming an all or none proposition while I'm leaving room for doubt. Just because we don't have definitive proof doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. And just because we have yet to accurately observe and correctly identify something as existing (no longer a theory but a verifiable fact) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
And yes, it is possible that "god" exists. But am I going to start believing in a "god" because some old guys from a few thousand years ago wrote down rules and stories to help explain the way the world worked then and to give guidance to "their people" with their lack of understanding of science while adopting different rituals, holidays, and other parts of their "religion" from other religions and then claiming it was given to them by a supreme being? Pardon the run on sentence, but no.
Science might not be perfect, but I have a hell of a lot more faith in it eventually getting it right than people sitting around and trying to interpret the words of long dead people that have been inaccurately transcribed and translated multiple times, let alone the base assumption that these "special" few were contacted by some omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that has strangely been absent since that time.
Is it possible such a god exists? Certainly.
Do I find it plausible? No.
Furthermore, if this omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, forgiving (can't forget the NT) being does exist. I really doubt he would hold a grudge against a mere mortal for not believing in his incredible existence. And if he does hold a grudge for that, maybe he's not all he's said to be to begin with.
I figure I have my time on this earth, I'll live it a good way based upon my own moral system. But I really don't see any reason to waste my time trying to understand or worship a being that is literally thought to be incomprehensible by Christianity as that seems like a genuine waste of time. -
OSH
Actually, more people have seen God (and/or His creation) daily...depending on how you want to interpret it.Fly4Fun;1555938 wrote:I think you're trying too hard... but I'll engage this line of thinking.
What is it that you consider to physically exist? From what you accurately described I'm not sure how rainbows don't physically exist? Not only are the water droplets in the air physical in nature, but light itself has a physical nature.
Generally I consider something to physically exist if it can be perceived by a human sense (or with the help of scientific instruments such as atoms or even cells, we can't see them with our eyes, but with different microscopes we can).
We don't know that God is not a physical thing. But we also don't know that he is a physical thing.
But when comparing the two, I'd say we have a hell of a lot more evidence that rainbows exist than God. People all around the world see rainbows. Only a "special" few have seen or otherwise "sensed" God (and I'm using special in a dubious way).
Believers would claim they see God everyday in the lands, waters, stars, sun, etc. since it all is His creation. So, those people believe that God is all around (omnipresent) at all times and can be seen -- although not in being. -
Heretic
And this is why we have the Flying Spaghetti Monster!OSH;1555972 wrote:Actually, more people have seen God (and/or His creation) daily...depending on how you want to interpret it.
Believers would claim they see God everyday in the lands, waters, stars, sun, etc. since it all is His creation. So, those people believe that God is all around (omnipresent) at all times and can be seen -- although not in being.