I need to vent on this Duck Dynasty "Controversy".

I think I follow you. I believe that the best interpretation of the biblical teaching regarding sex and marriage is that sex (be it hetero or homo) outside of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman, is sinful. I believe the western church, in general, has tolerated, winked at, etc., hetero-sexual sin, to our shame. But I don't think holding up long term shacking up, or same-sex-marriage is particularly helpful. Is a participant in a monogamous and lasting same-sex relationship less sinful than a heterosexual slut in the area of their sex life? I think that's probably the case. Nevertheless, it is monogamous, heterosexual, covenants of marriage that we promote. Imho.

Also, I don't intend to show disdain to homosexuals in general. Please don't equate disagreement with disdain. That said, I do freely admit that I show disdain for the likes of GLAAD.
 
BedellBrave said:
I think I follow you. I believe that the best interpretation of the biblical teaching regarding sex and marriage is that sex (be it hetero or homo) outside of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman, is sinful. I believe the western church, in general, has tolerated, winked at, etc., hetero-sexual sin, to our shame. But I don't think holding up long term shacking up, or same-sex-marriage is particularly helpful. Is a participant in a monogamous and lasting same-sex relationship less sinful than a heterosexual slut in the area of their sex life? I think that's probably the case. Nevertheless, it is monogamous, heterosexual, covenants of marriage that we promote. Imho.

Also, I don't intend to show disdain to homosexuals in general. Please don't equate disagreement with disdain. That said, I do freely admit that I show disdain for the likes of GLAAD.
Click to expand...

Thanks much, Beds, for your quick response - especially these two parts:

I believe the western church, in general, has tolerated, winked at, etc., hetero-sexual sin, to our shame.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered (and even wandered while wondering!) why this is? Would there be a noticeable membership decline (with all Christian sects) if the powers-that-be took more a hard-line (or perhaps the proper line) on this subject? Just food for thought, and something that's been on my mind for years.

Is a participant in a monogamous and lasting same-sex relationship less sinful than a heterosexual slut in the area of their sex life? I think that's probably the case
Click to expand...

And thank you much specifically for this. It sorta makes me feel less...bad? (haha) for having essentially the same thought. Again, I don't think it's something either of us consider ideal for marriage, but it really seems like the ideal of marriage has taken a hit over the years.

n no worries, I shoulda used a different word than "disdain." Tis what I get for trying to juxtapose so many thoughts in a single post, haha! :)
 
My pleasure.

And I think you are right in part on one of the reasons the western church, again in general, winks. When it's the kid of the power-broker in a church, the convictions are tested. And unfortunately, leaders and churches wimp out - and to the detriment of all involved. I'm sure there are other factors (e.g., like heterosexuals understanding the temptations and sins of fellow heterosexuals, while not getting the sins and temptations of those with same-sex attraction).
 
BedellBrave said:
(e.g., like heterosexuals understanding the temptations and sins of fellow heterosexuals, while not getting the sins and temptations of those with same-sex attraction).
Click to expand...

Now that's some reasoning I've never really thought about (or even heard before, to be honest).

...and it does make me wonder what the end-game would be (or is) when you have a lack of understanding with sins and temptations in regards to a certain part of the population.

...and some people say life is boring? Pssh.
 
Mrs. Meta said:
Yeah, to be honest, I'm more of a Netflix person myself. Don't have cable n never heard of the show 'till now.

...just wish I could say the same for Honey Boo Boo :Sad:
Click to expand...
2 mintues of Honey Boo Boo and I thought about getting a new identity.

I know someone will post this so I may as well go ahead. C Sheen weighs in and you have to admit the guy has a flair.

hey Mallard brained
Phil Robertso!
you have offended and hurt so many dear friends of mine,
who DO NOT have the voice or the outreach that I do.
well news flash
shower-dodger,
I will speak loudly and clearly for ALL of them.
so,
just when your desperately sub evolved ass thought the pressure was off,
you are now in the crosshairs of a MaSheen style media
beat down.
(I'll try to keep the big words to a minimum as not to confuse you)

your statements were and are
abhorrently and
mendaciously unforgivable.

the idea that you have a job
outside of dirt-clod stacking
is a miracle.

the only 'Dynasty' you are attached to might be the
re-runs of that dated show.

the only thing you should ever be in charge of building is a hole in the ground the exact size of your head.
perhaps your beard would fit as well if you plucked out the
army of scabies and
bull weevils sequestered deep in it's sarcophagus of dander and weasel pelts.

shame on you.
you're the only surviving
brain donor I've ever known.

when the gators and Egrets
kick you out of their
hovel,
you need to make serious amends to those you have
radically offended.

on the eight day
when I was whittling my cosmic banjo,
I'm pretty sure YOU were the scattered dross I then used to light a fire and
locate the nearest
Andy Gump.

repulsed by you;
c sheen

hash tag;
Duck; that was me.
 
I'd be honored to get that from Mr. Sheen.

entirefamily.jpg


charlie-sheen-drunk.jpg
 
And now finally the great family man Jesse Jackson jr Chimes in on Phil's comments.

**** you Jesse, how about getting your people straight before you cast stones on a mans comments.
 
Krgrecw said:
And now finally the great family man Jesse Jackson jr Chimes in on Phil's comments.

**** you Jesse, how about getting your people straight before you cast stones on a mans comments.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Someone brought up his illegitimate kids, his son and a whole bunch of crap he has done. He is an entitled person who stood along side MLK. Who cares what happened 50 years ago? You should have used that symbolism to uplift our kind not make it worse. Windbag of nothing is all he is.
 
BedellBrave said:
I think I follow you. I believe that the best interpretation of the biblical teaching regarding sex and marriage is that sex (be it hetero or homo) outside of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman, is sinful. I believe the western church, in general, has tolerated, winked at, etc., hetero-sexual sin, to our shame. But I don't think holding up long term shacking up, or same-sex-marriage is particularly helpful. Is a participant in a monogamous and lasting same-sex relationship less sinful than a heterosexual slut in the area of their sex life? I think that's probably the case. Nevertheless, it is monogamous, heterosexual, covenants of marriage that we promote. Imho.

Also, I don't intend to show disdain to homosexuals in general. Please don't equate disagreement with disdain. That said, I do freely admit that I show disdain for the likes of GLAAD.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this (and some of your earlier posts) accurately, I think the only place where we possibly differ is that I believe that there are people who are genuinely homosexual and those people should be recognized for who they are without tacking the sinful label on them (provided of course that their actions lie within the parameters to which we supposedly hold heterosexuals).

One of my daughters has an internship in New York and my wife and I went to visit her and took her to a church in Manhattan. It was a very small Lutheran congregation with about 40 people in attendance and of all the approximately 20 guys there, about five of us were straight. Got me to thinking that there's the old armed services saying "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out." It dawned on me that maybe we should alter that on this issue and say "Church them all and let God sort them out" and by church I don't mean tie them to the pews on Sunday morning. I mean accepting them for who they are, telling them the Gospel is for them as well, and hoping that helps them in their life's journey.

And I agree with you that GLAAD and the rest of the organizations that populate the political spectrum preaching to the rest of us should just take a break now and then. People tend to equate political correctness with those only on the left, but it's everywhere. No one can disagree with anyone about anything without having some organization coming out of the woodwork and playing the scold. Very tiring.
 
50PoundHead said:
If I'm reading this (and some of your earlier posts) accurately, I think the only place where we possibly differ is that I believe that there are people who are genuinely homosexual and those people should be recognized for who they are without tacking the sinful label on them (provided of course that their actions lie within the parameters to which we supposedly hold heterosexuals).

One of my daughters has an internship in New York and my wife and I went to visit her and took her to a church in Manhattan. It was a very small Lutheran congregation with about 40 people in attendance and of all the approximately 20 guys there, about five of us were straight. Got me to thinking that there's the old armed services saying "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out." It dawned on me that maybe we should alter that on this issue and say "Church them all and let God sort them out" and by church I don't mean tie them to the pews on Sunday morning. I mean accepting them for who they are, telling them the Gospel is for them as well, and hoping that helps them in their life's journey.

And I agree with you that GLAAD and the rest of the organizations that populate the political spectrum preaching to the rest of us should just take a break now and then. People tend to equate political correctness with those only on the left, but it's everywhere. No one can disagree with anyone about anything without having some organization coming out of the woodwork and playing the scold. Very tiring.
Click to expand...

+1

This is why I say God is the only one that can judge them, not me nor anyone else and that goes for GLAAD trying to tell me and force me to their will/beliefs. Ain't happening so they need to quit trying.
 
50PoundHead said:
If I'm reading this (and some of your earlier posts) accurately, I think the only place where we possibly differ is that I believe that there are people who are genuinely homosexual and those people should be recognized for who they are without tacking the sinful label on them (provided of course that their actions lie within the parameters to which we supposedly hold heterosexuals).

One of my daughters has an internship in New York and my wife and I went to visit her and took her to a church in Manhattan. It was a very small Lutheran congregation with about 40 people in attendance and of all the approximately 20 guys there, about five of us were straight. Got me to thinking that there's the old armed services saying "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out." It dawned on me that maybe we should alter that on this issue and say "Church them all and let God sort them out" and by church I don't mean tie them to the pews on Sunday morning. I mean accepting them for who they are, telling them the Gospel is for them as well, and hoping that helps them in their life's journey.

And I agree with you that GLAAD and the rest of the organizations that populate the political spectrum preaching to the rest of us should just take a break now and then. People tend to equate political correctness with those only on the left, but it's everywhere. No one can disagree with anyone about anything without having some organization coming out of the woodwork and playing the scold. Very tiring.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that sounds about like the only point upon which we disagree. Next time you are in Manhattan, visit Redeemer Presbyterian (where Tim Keller pastors) - that's about where I am theologically. Oh, and I gladly preach the Gospel to all within our congregation (no matter their sexual inclinations).
 
So Jesse Jackson is now demanding to meet with A&e and Cracker Barrel. I guess Jackson didn't see the backlash that Cracker Barrel received when they pulled Duck a Dynasty merchandise. I pray and hope somehow this blows up in Jackson's face like it did for Cracker Barrel
 
I have a hunch the people who're showing up and having "backlash" against A&E and Cracker Barrel already don't like Jesse Jackson so I don't see how that will blowback on Jackson.
 
They will ignore him, like they should. He is a non-entity, a sham, a con-artist, the antithesis of what Dr. MLK was about. He used his flash in the pan siding with MLK to build his corrupt empire of entitlement.
 
zitothebrave said:
I have a hunch the people who're showing up and having "backlash" against A&E and Cracker Barrel already don't like Jesse Jackson so I don't see how that will blowback on Jackson.
Click to expand...

But I think more people don't like Jj than the duck dynasty gang. Do I think/hope that somehow like the people fought against Cracker Barrel, people will finally stand up for all the double standards with regard to race in this country, that jj jr is a part of? I hope so.
 
I have a hunch that the people who fought against cracker barrel already thing Jesse Jackson is a perpetrator of the double standard of race or whatever you're talking about. Also the whole idea of double standard of racism is dumb and usually an excuse used by racists. People are racist or not. Doesn't matter if you're black or white.
 
zitothebrave said:
I have a hunch that the people who fought against cracker barrel already thing Jesse Jackson is a perpetrator of the double standard of race or whatever you're talking about. Also the whole idea of double standard of racism is dumb and usually an excuse used by racists. People are racist or not. Doesn't matter if you're black or white.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I am a bigot/racist against both and if you see it through my eyes you would know why.

Jesse Jackass is an afterthought in many peoples' eyes and he needs to make money so his son doesn't get shanked in prison.
 
Jackson is a relic of an older era. Black militancy is largely unnecessary now and that was the era he was from. I won't say totally unnecessary of course cause you never know when it will be needed again. But as it is the black community doesn't need Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for the 21st century, they need a different brand of leader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top