Star of Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, has been suspended indefinitely by A&E for “offensive comments” during a GQ interview.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus…That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Asked what he finds sinful, Robertson answers,
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there… Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men…Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Robertson added,
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job…We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
The lamestream media headlined the story as: “Robertson Compares Homosexuality to Bestiality, Alcoholism, and Terrorism. (Or some such rendition.)
If that’s true, then Robertson also compared homosexuality to heterosexual promiscuity. They ask for equal treatment, get equal treatment, and still they complain. You can’t win.
Anyway, A&E has no problem with conservative Christian views so long as their moderated, subdued, and diluted by a production staff. In that case they’re able to create a nice sales pitch for the show. It’s precisely one of the reasons Duck Dynasty is so popular. My wife is one of their biggest fans and absolutely loves the closing prayer as the family sits around the table for dinner. It’s nice to see things like that on television these days. It’s nice to see a family act like a family, even if they are a bit goofy (in a good way) at times.
Since the nice varnish has begun to fade, however, and Robertson’s Christian views are revealed to be genuine, as opposed to being a writer’s creation, A&E runs for cover, fearing backlash from homosexual groups like GLAAD.
Yes, yes, They’ve already made a statement. They wasted no time. GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said,
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe…He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”
Hate to break it to ya, Willy, but “true Christians” take the Bible at its word, so to speak. As Mr. Simpson from Eternity Matters writes,
”100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms. 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman. 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children). [Meanwhile] 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.”
So, why are Christians expected to moderate their views? The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior in both the Old and New Testament. Are Christians supposed to ignore this? Should Christians ignore everything pop culture finds objectionable? What happened to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion? Are they only available to those on the left, like Oprah Winfrey? You know, the lady who wants old white people to die.
You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still, there’s a whole generation – I say this, you know, I said this, you know, for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own, you know, community in the south – there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.
Winfrey calls for the death of millions, like some crypto-Nazi, and receives adoration. Robertson factually states that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, like a true Christian, and receives his walking papers. Hmm. Somehow I’m not sure the outcome of these scenarios makes sense.
But that’s the New America, folks. Homosexuals are free to march up and down the streets making sexually provocative gestures; Planned Parenthood is free to enter our schools and indoctrinate our children into supporting child-murder; and courts are free to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.
Welcome…to the New America.
Sifting Reality 
You know how much the LEFT hates truth.
I just signed a petition on change.org called: “A&E Network: Bring Phil Robertson back!”
Isn’t it odd how conservative Phil Robertson will say homosexuality is a sin and get unfairly and viciously assaulted while the liberal pope will say homosexuality is a sin and be named Person of the Year by The Advocate, the leading LGBT magazine in America. Is this Duck Hypocrisy or is it a case of (as Willie Robertson would say) Facial Profiling?
Terrance…
why are Christians expected to moderate their views? The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior in both the Old and New Testament. Are Christians supposed to ignore this?
Christians don’t have to moderate their views. No one does. IF you think “the gays” are comparable to terrorists and rapists, you can say it. IF you think “the blacks” are stupid and sinful, you can say it.
Similarly, IF we find people who say such things to be incredibly immoral and hateful and irrational, WE can say it. Everyone gets to say what they believe.
But, you aren’t free from the consequences of saying what you believe.
IF this Duck guy wants to talk trash about gay folk, he can. BUT, he can also expect that he might be censured or removed from his job on TV, which is his network’s freedom. IF sufficient numbers of people find the Duck man’s opinions sufficiently offensive and immoral, they will turn him off and tune him out. IF the network doesn’t want people to tune them out, they are free to remove the offender, who still retains his liberty to say what he wants. Win, win.
Is there a problem with that?
~Dan
Since when is telling the truth about homosexuality talking “trash about gay folk.” What was immoral about what Phil said?
The problem is with how selective the media is. Liberals can say what they want, but Christians can’t. I hope the whole Duck Dynasty group refuses to do business with A&E.
Dan, did Robertson equate homosexual acts to terrorism and rape? Of course he didn’t, and talk about “the gays” and “the blacks” is stupid because one’s ethnicity isn’t a behavior, much less does the Bible universally condemn a particular ethnicity.
Funny how, in response to an unsubstantiated and possibly fabricated story about a kid being picked on for what he wore, you crowed about how you stand with people who dress how they wish — “Mind your own business, people.”
Now? Well, “you aren’t free from the consequences of saying what you believe.”
Ace of Spades put it well today:
[quote]
Yes, A&E has the right to suspend Phil Robinson. A&E also has the right to stand up for a broad and generous principle of Freedom of Thought and Expression.
Why does no one speak of that right? Sure, they have the right to act hostilely towards the spirit of the First Amendment and use coercive power to hammer people into only speaking the Officially Approved Institutional Corporate Slogans.
They also have the right to stick up for people’s right to dissent, to be “weird,” to have unpopular thoughts and heterodox beliefs. And as a media company, they really ought to have an interest in doing so.
Why does no one ever mention this? Why does no one ever push companies to recognize that right, rather than the other one?
It is well-conceded that an employer has the right to fire you for some heterodox belief or some oddball sexual habit, but an employer similarly has the right to foster an environment of self-expression and freedom, and yet no one seems to talk about a company’s capacity to be a Good Actor in the realm of free expression.
There should be pushback against this idea that of course the people with direct authority over us — our employers — can and should fire us or otherwise inflict serious economic consequences of it for daring to live as Free Americans.
[end quote]
There SHOULD be pushback — and I’m certain that there would be from the likes of you if a cable channel fired a reality-TV star for letting his Freak Flag fly, but since the man’s beliefs echo those of the Apostle Paul rather than those of Dan Savage or Lady Gaga, you’re positively gleeful about the “consequences” he might face: the social sanction, even the possible hit to his pocketbook, in a word, the persecution.
You don’t really believe in anything but advancing Leftism.
You’ll cluck about bearing false witness until you find out that your preferred political candidate’s spiritual mentor is a race essentialist demagogue who accused the U.S. government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide: then, well, that guy’s a man of God whose lies were a misdemeanor compared to the silence of less partisan pastors, and his critics are guilty of a digital lynching.
You’ll present yourself as a man primarily concerned with peace — “just peacemaking” and the like — but you’ll downplay the acts of violence committed by the unrepentant domestic terrorist who was that same candidate’s political sponsor. You’ll even lie about his history, turning his incompetence at targeting soldiers and their loved ones into a non-violent campaign of targeting “stuff.” More recently, you have almost nothing but praise for a Marxist who founded an armed organization, who refused to renounce violence, who refused to denounce an anthem that explicitly incited murderous violence against a racial minority, and who refused to stand up against tyrannical allies who routinely abused the civil rights of the people within their borders: even though the most accurate thing one can say about Mandela is that he was less bad than others in South Africa, you broach absolutely no criticism of that supposedly “great man.”
And you will preen about how oh-so-tolerant you are, but here you’re positively gleeful about the “consequences” a man will face for daring to express a view that is consistent with the clear teachings of the Bible you say you love.
It would be nice if, once in a while, you would live up to your stated principles even at the expense of some short-term political benefit.
Instead, you prove that your interest in tolerance is entirely self-serving: the moment your position becomes even arguably mainstream, you have no problem being intolerant in the extreme, using every tool at your disposal to silence the opposition.
You’re living proof of Fen’s Law:
The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about.
A few thoughts. From someone who has gotten sucked into watching the show and mostly enjoys it.
1. Phil has every right to express his views.
2. A&E can take whatever actions they want in response.
3. It sounds like A&E is being deluged by calls from folks who want Phil back. Will A&E give those folks the same consideration they give the gay activist groups.
4. A&E have already edited/censored the show to “tone down” the explicit references to Christianity.
5. The Robertson family has been incredibly upfront about the fact that if they have to choose between the show, the fame and their faith that they will walk away from the show in a heartbeat.
6. How stupid can A&E be to mess with the (one of, if not the) highest rated cable show, which comprises a significant portion of their current broadcast schedule. Do they really want these folks to walk? We all know that there will be no shortage of cable outlets lining up for a show with the Robertsons if A&E is this stupid.
7. It’s interesting that we didn’t get this kind of outrage from those on the left when Martin Bashir expressed his opinions about Sarah Palin. Did Bashir get suspended? Did MSNBC say anything critical of his comments? Was there any significant move to do anything about Bashir’s vile comments?
8. I completely agree that this kind of thing should be driven by the market. remember how shocked Natalie Mains was when fans reacted negatively to her anti-Bush comments. No question she had the right to express her views, it’s just incredibly hypocritical to get upset, when your fans express their views in a way that hurts you. If, there had been any actual backlash (Significant negative feedback, low ratings, sponsors dropping out) then it’s all good and the market is working. In this case, there really hadn’t been any significant market reaction before A&E jumped to placate the tiny but loud minority of the gay activist community.
9. Let’s not forget, Phil’s got at least two strikes against him as far as the left is concerned. He’s a self made rich man, and a vocal Christian.
“We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
The words of the evil intolerant hatemonger Phil Robertson.
Craig…
In this case, there really hadn’t been any significant market reaction before A&E jumped to placate the tiny but loud minority of the gay activist community.
It could also be, of course, that the people at A&E hold values that are contrary to those expressed by Robertson. It could be that the A&E people believe that it is evil to compare gay folk to bestialists and terrorists and they took a stand on their values. If so, I applaud them.
~Dan
Did Robertson really compare homosexuals to beastiality and terrorists? Or did he include them in a list of behaviors for which people will go to hell?
Will you ever be honest in your dealings? Or will you always skew and spin?
Glenn…
What was immoral about what Phil said?
It is evil and (ironically) slanderous (you know, one of those traits that Robertson listed as evil) to lump gay folk with bestialists and terrorists. People recognize that evil as beyond the pale. It’s one thing to say, “Yeah, I believe gay behavior is sinful…” it’s another thing to say, “Yeah, gay people are similar to those who engage in bestiality and terrorism…”
Even when you put it in a rather patronizing frame (“Yeah, we ought to love ’em whether they’re gay or practice bestiality or drunks or terrorists…”) Gee, that’s big of you to be “willing” to love terrorists or even “the gays…”
While you may not get it, this is what many people consider to be evil. NOT them expressing an opinion on a behavior’s sin status, but in lumping a whole group of people in with the worst of sinful abusers. It’s slander, and those who engage in slander are not part of the Kingdom, as Robertson noted.
~Dan
(John, Terrance, a recent comment of mine here wasn’t posted. Let me know if it’s not in moderation limbo, and I’ll try to restate my point from memory.)
Bubba, when a comment includes 2 or more links it gets held in moderation. The reaso n I didnt see it is because this wasnt my post and for some reason my phone doesnt send me a notification when I’m not the author of the post. If it happens again, hit me up on twitter or facebook and let me know I’ll make sure it gets approved right away. Sorry for the delay.
Dan:
You condemn “NOT them expressing an opinion on a behavior’s sin status, but in lumping a whole group of people in with the worst of sinful abusers.”
1) How do you know that’s what he was doing? How do you know that he was implying a moral equivalency between homosexual behavior and terrorism, rather than merely implying that the ONLY salient similarity is that (he believes) they’re both sins?
2) If this sort of lumping-in is evil, what do you think about 1 Corinthians 6, which Robertson was quite clearly paraphrasing? Is it wrong to lump together idolators, thieves, and drunkards?
Was Paul wrong, in Romans 1, to group together mere envy and outright murder, and to group together the ruthless with the merely foolish, and slanderers with those who are disobedient to their parents? Was he wrong to write, in verse 32, about “God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die”?
Was Jesus wrong, in Matthew 5, to state that mere hatred and lust are as evil as actual murder and adultery?
3) If it’s oh-so-important to avoid slander, why did you omit those other kinds of sinners that Robertson mentioned, like ADULTERERS AND DRUNKS?
Mentioning those would put the lie to your belief that Robertson was suggesting that sodomy was comparable only to acts like terrorism and bestiality, but surely it’s a coincidence that you only list the most egregious things he mentioned rather than provide a more balanced and comprehensive view.
“GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said,
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe…”
I find it amusing that someone like Cruz feels that he has any power to define just what a “true” Christian believes. In fact, I see anti-Christians often use the “claim to be a Christian” line a lot, which is a sort of reverse psychology that puts the person they are attacking by completely misrepresenting what they actually say, do and believe into a position where they have to defend whether or not they are a “true” Christian. Of course, a “true” Christian – by their defnintion – is no Christian at all, since it would require living contrary to what Christ and the Bible teaches us. Which means, again by their definition, someone who actually tries to live by Christ’s teaching, and accepts Jesus as God the Son, is a false Christian and hatemonger.
How convenient of them to be able to define things however they wish, and expect everyone else to just go along with it.
(Personally, I’ve never seen the show and have little patience for TV in general, reality shows in particular. I did try and watch it once, trying to figure out what the big deal is, and had to stop. Outside of the show, however, I find I rather like the family.)
Correction, you did mention the drunks once, but it’s still worth noting that you omitted drunks and adulterers to accuse Robertson of wanting “to lump gay folk with bestialists and terrorists.”
(Leviticus 18:22 prohibits homosexual relations, and THE VERY NEXT VERSE prohibits bestiality. Is it wrong to have written those two prohibitions one after the other?)
“Even when you put it in a rather patronizing frame (‘Yeah, we ought to love ‘em whether they’re gay or practice bestiality or drunks or terrorists…’) Gee, that’s big of you to be ‘willing’ to love terrorists or even ‘the gays…’”
It’s awfully SMALL of you to sneer at this. You preach on about love, but you’re apparently unwilling to show love to people who disagree with you about sodomy — just as your need to avoid slander stops at smearing us.
My point is this:
Robertson has the right to say what he wants.
A&E has the right to suspend him if they find his words/position immoral.
I think that’s as it should be. Robertson has lost no rights, nor has A&E.
Kunoichi…
Which means, again by their definition, someone who actually tries to live by Christ’s teaching…
Jesus has not taken a position on all gay folk being comparable to bestialists, drunks and terrorists. IF you want to make the argument that SOME Christians hold the opinion that Jesus would be opposed to all gay behavior, that is indeed true. But Jesus has not told us what to think about, for instance, marriage between two gay folk and Christians of good faith disagree on the topic. But comparing a whole group of people to the most atrocious behaviors (terrorism, bestiality) is slanderous, and slander is wrong.
~Dan
Dan, you are hardly in any position to say anything about what Jesus would or wouldn’t oppose, considering your own panchent of twisting and redefining pretty much everything in the Bible into something completely different. Go troll someone else.
I’m stating a simple observable fact, Kunoichi: Jesus never once came out with a position about what we should think about all gay behavior or all gay people.
Robertson was offering his opinion, not Jesus’. We should not confuse our opinions with Jesus’. That arrogance, and arrogance is wrong (and THAT level of arrogance is also just demented).
If you have a problem with the facts, go make up your own (but don’t expect to be taken seriously).
“Jesus never once came out with a position about what we should think about all gay behavior or all gay people.”
Of course he didn’t. That’s because the label of homosexuality and being “gay” is completely modern. Until less than 2 centuries ago, the label of homosexuality didn’t exist, and the use of the word gay as a defining label is even more recent. Your phrasing is completely dishonest and ridiculous, as you are projecting modern concepts onto the past.
People are sexual beings. History has proven we will have sex with anything that doesn’t move to fast. What Jesus did do was reaffirm that marriage is between a man and a women, and sex is restricted to marriage. Anything else is a sin. The cultures surrounding Jews and early Christians throughout history had little problem with all sorts of sexual practises, including sex with children, animals, objects, close family members, groups and, of course, same genders. People were not defined and labelled by their urges, as we do now, but they condemned themselves by their actions.
John, when someone says, “you know, it’s like monsters or nazis or conservatives…” you’re demonizing by association.
I’m just telling you how it comes across and why people find this comment evil. It’s slanderous, or at least, slanderous-sounding.
But Robertson (and you?) can clarify and say, “I do apologize for the misunderstanding, I do NOT mean that gay people are ANYTHING like bestialists, drunkards or terrorists. My list was just meant to say these are things I think are sins, not that they are at all in any way comparable… because they are not. I’m sorry that I stated it in a way that sounded like that…”
Is that your point? Do you think that’s Robertson’s point? Then say it.
My point, still, is that Robertson could say what his conscience dictates and A&E can take what actions their conscience dictates. Win, win. As it should be. Yes?
~Dan
But homosexuals are just like beastialists, drunkards, and terrorists in that they are sinning when they do those things. Just like homosexuals are like thieves, and liars, and fornicators, and adulterers, because they are sinning.
You are trying to draw a comparison that wasnt made just so you can paint people like Robertson as hateful. Its as dishonest as it gets. The left does it with race too
Clearly, they do.
I think sinners are comparable to sinners, and myself included.
Where did this come from? Are you back to playing the race game?
I agree.
I agree.
Are you aware of the monotony of federal laws that prohibit discriminating against someone because of their religious beliefs?
Yes. It’s against the law.
Again, the problem is comparing ALL “the gays” to the very worst of sinners – terrorists, bestiality participants… if he had said, “you know, I think we should love everyone, gay folk, cigarette smokers, those who drive polluting vehicles, litterbugs, smarmy televangelists…” there would have been no uproar. Instead, he compared gay folk – as a group – to TERRORISTS, to those who abuse animals sexually. THAT is the problem.
That you all still don’t get it indicates a sort of arrogance of opinion that does not even consider what you’re saying. But JUST LIKE people would not take kindly to listing “all black folk” or “all Jewish folk” or “all Muslims” alongside “terrorists and bestialists” – such comparisons/links would be considered immoral and evil – so, too, people recognize the evil nature of Robertson’s list.
You also have to take into consideration the context of culture – of cultures that have demonized and oppressed, beaten and killed gay folk for centuries – to once again demonize them by comparing them to the very worst of sinners, that is the problem, that is the wrong, sinful behavior on Robertson’s part. At least, that’s what many good people of good faith think.
Terrance…
Christians don’t have to moderate their views.
Clearly, they do.
Clearly they don’t. No one has arrested Robertson, no one has abused or beaten him. No one has killed him. Many folk on the left have defended his freedom of speech to say stupid, immoral and irrational things. AND, we defend A&E’s right to censure their employees for saying stupid, immoral and irrational, offensive things.
Terrance…
Are you aware of the monotony of federal laws that prohibit discriminating against someone because of their religious beliefs?
The “monotony…”? Yes, you can’t discriminate based on religious beliefs. That means that they can’t discriminate against Robertson for his religious beliefs, NOR can Robertson and his supports discriminate against A&E for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. IF they find his comparison to be evil and immoral, do you think they should be forced to employ him even if it is contrary to their value system?
You see, the point you’re missing is that your right to religious freedom HAS to be balanced against OTHER’S rights to religious freedom. Your right to voice your religious biases ends at harming others. And slander is harm (in addition to being wrong, as Robertson rightfully noted).
Your religious liberty does not extend to oppressing others. So no, it is NOT against the law to oppose slanderous, immoral statements and hold your employees accountable for their slanderous, immoral words.
~Dan
The problem with you, Dan, is your inability to read anything in context. The context of my post was Robertson being kicked off television for his undiluted conservative Christianity. Clearly, Christians are expected to moderate their faith if they are to be allowed on television – and that is bullshit.
Glenn, Simpson, John, and others have proven to you that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Bible. It is a Christian belief that Phil Robertson was punished for.
Difference: Robetson in no sense discriminated against A&E for their “religious beliefs” or otherwise. A&E most certainly discriminated against Robertson for his.
I see. So it’s okay to violate a federal law if it conflicts with your values? Would it be okay to violate federal law and obtain an elective, late-term abortion if you believe in complete bodily autonomy? Would it be okay to violate federal law and rig an election because you believe Republicans are dirty evil-mongers? Why not?
This makes no sense. Robertson wasn’t pushing his views on anyone else. He was giving an explanation of HIS VIEWS, which is a constitutionally protected right.
Should someone be fired for saying that greed is a sin? No? Why not, if it hurts the banker’s feelings? And slander? I see. So it’s now “slanderous” to believe in the Bible? And you call yourself a Christian?
Who did he oppress and in what possible way?
His statements were neither slanderous or immoral.
Thanks, John! I was afraid it had something to do with my having to log back in to post that comment.
When you demonize a whole group of people – people that by and large, you don’t even know – listing them with the very worst of humanity, you are helping oppress a people. This is especially true when it is a group that has traditionally been oppressed and demonized.
It is slanderous to compare a WHOLE GROUP of people you don’t know to terrorists, Terrrance. THAT is what has gotten Robertson in trouble. People find that sort of demonizing to be not only stupid and irrational, but immoral.
Are you saying that A&E should not be allowed to act on their values?
If a TV employee was to demonize Jewish people, is it okay for the company to fire him or do they have to keep on the Jewish-demonizer, even if his statements are contrary to their values?
Do you recognize the rights others have or do you only want religious liberty for you and those who agree with you?
Whether or not you wish to recognize others’ rights, people DO have a right to take a stand against immoral behavior, or what they consider immoral. People have a right to protest shows featuring bigots, businesses have a right to fire employees for saying bigoted things. If you think they don’t have the right to do this, then all you have to do is prove it in a court of law. You’d lose that case.
Terrance…
His statements were neither slanderous or immoral…
Says who? Many of us DO find them to be slanderous and immoral. Are you saying that our opinions are not supported, only YOUR opinions? Says who?
You’re simply mistaken on this one, Terrance.
Robertson has the right to voice his opinion. He does not have the right to insist his employer keep him on TV if they find his opinions immoral. He just doesn’t, not in our country. It’s all about religious liberty FOR ALL, not just those who agree with you.
~Dan
Look at it this way: IF one of the Christian-type TV stations had a show featuring, for instance, a Contemporary Christian singer and that singer publicly voiced support for gay marriage, do you think that TV station would fire him? You bet they would. Do you think they’d have the right to do so, or should they be forced to keep him on even when his values do not match the values of the company?
Or how about a church organization, like a prison ministry? If one of their employees voices support for hatred of Muslim folk, should the church organization be forced to keep him on, or can they legally and legitimately fire him?
Of course you can fire folk for voicing opinions contrary to the values of an organization.
Religious liberty, baby, it cuts two ways.
~Dan
Dan:
“Again, the problem is comparing ALL ‘the gays’ to the very worst of sinners – terrorists, bestiality participants…”
First, I don’t see where Robertson actually used the phrase “the gays,” so I wonder, who in the world are you quoting? Or are you just using that phrase — in quote-marks no less — just to make the guy seem even less reputable than you think he is, all while you bemoan and denounce slander?
More than that, he *DID NOT* just compare homosexuals to terrorists and goat botherers.
He also mentioned sleeping around. And adulterers. And idolators. And the greedy. And drunkards. And swindlers.
It’s almost as if he wasn’t trying to assert a moral equivalency among those sins, but providing a wide survey of acts that he deems to be contrary to God’s law.
“We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists.”
Did he just compare DRUNKS to terrorists? Oh noes, the slanders!
—
The funny thing is, you KNOW that Robertson mentioned these other sins…
“You see, the point you’re missing is that your right to religious freedom HAS to be balanced against OTHER’S rights to religious freedom. Your right to voice your religious biases ends at harming others. And slander is harm (in addition to being wrong, as Robertson rightfully noted).”
…you just want to ignore that fact to draw the worst possible conclusion about what he said. Please tell us more about how bad it is to slander others.
And, now, I see you’re not REALLY defending Robertson’s right to make the comments he did. Evidently your argument is this:
1) One’s right to religious speech ends at harm.
2) Slander is harm.
3) Robertson’s comment is slanderous.
Q.E.D., Robertson evidently doesn’t have the right to quote I Corinthians, you just don’t have the guts to come right out and say it — probably because, if you were to be that honest, you could no longer plausibly present yourself as a champion of free speech.
“When you demonize a whole group of people – people that by and large, you don’t even know – listing them with the very worst of humanity, you are helping oppress a people.”
By that logic, aren’t you oppressing goat botherers and supposed freedom fighters by assuming that they’re — AND I QUOTE — “the very worst of humanity”? Those are your words, not Robertson’s.
Aren’t you denigrating a “WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE,” too?
“Whether or not you wish to recognize others’ rights, people DO have a right to take a stand against immoral behavior, or what they consider immoral.”
They just don’t have the right to group sets of immoral behavior in ways that Dan doesn’t like — in groupings like those found in Romans 1 or in I Corinthians, or in groups like Jesus’ assertion that lust and hatred are as immoral as adultery and murder.
Do that, and you’re guilty of slander, and since slander causes harm, you don’t have the right to express that belief.
How come it’s just horrific to group gays with terrorists or goat-botherers, but it’s not AT LEAST a category error to conflate ethnic groups like blacks and Jews with a group that’s wholly distinguished by behavior?
I have been getting lots of chuckles seeing Dan having his arguments totally dismantled.
What I find really amusing is than Dan called what Robertson said “immoral,” and yet he think homosexual behavior isn’t immoral! The man lives in an upside-down world.
Oh, and his claim that Jesus never said anything about homosexual behavior is the normal canard from liberal fake Christians like he is – JESUS is GOD. GOD gave HIS view of homosexual behavior quite succinctly in the O.T., and in the N.T. where Paul condemns it, Paul stated that he was taught by Christ. So Trabue is a liar like his father the devil. More blaspheming of Christ and God.
Bubba…
Or are you just using that phrase — in quote-marks no less — just to make the guy seem even less reputable than you think he is
I’m using the phrase (oft used by many conservatives) to emphasize that he is speaking about a WHOLE GROUP of people – ALL gay folk. That is part of the problem, he’s demonizing and generalizing (irrationally, unjustly) a whole group of people he has no knowledge of personally.
Bubba…
Robertson evidently doesn’t have the right to quote I Corinthians, you just don’t have the guts to come right out and say it
As I and many other people have been saying (you know, with our own actual words, not the ones you’re putting into our mouths) is that he has the right to think that homosexuality is a sin. I’ll state it for the last time and then I’m done:
THE PROBLEM IS the listing of all gay people alongside terrorists, drunks and practicing bestiality – some of the very worst awful behaviors of humanity. It’s a lumping in of a whole group of people – good, moral, Christian, faithful people amongst them – and denigrating their character by his list of awful sins.
He is free to quote 1 Corinthians, BUT he should be wary of how he uses his words. If he is merely saying, “I think that we are all sinners in some ways. I happen to think that gay sex is sinful. As is slandering, as is bearing false witness, as are many of our daily behaviors. Of course, we don’t all agree on where to draw the line, but the point is, we do all sin in some ways…” there is no problem. There is humility in that statement, there is grace in that statement, there is room for personal error and sin in that statement.
On the other hand, saying, “We need to love everyone, even gay people, terrorists and drunkards…” the tone is no longer humble, but arrogant. There is an Us and Them component to that statement. And by including terrorists, he appears to be lumping gay folk (all gay folk, regardless of their morality or lack thereof) in with the very worst of human behaviors, quite literally demonizing them.
That is the problem.
If you can’t see it, more’s the shame. You all will continue to marginalize yourselves if you keep down this path and people will just shake their heads and say, “what sad, bitter fools…” and you will be written off as people who are not worth listening to.
Words for those who have ears to hear.
~Dan
Oh, and by the way, GOD “demonized” ALL “gay” people by calling their behavior an abomination. And in the same passage as he condemned bestiality. I guess God sees both behaviors as a corruption of human sexuality.
And any man who ruts with another man is behaving as an animal. So stick that in your perverted pipe and smoke it, TRABUE!
Okay, one last thing.
Bubba…
aren’t you oppressing goat botherers and supposed freedom fighters by assuming that they’re — AND I QUOTE — “the very worst of humanity”?
The thing is, Bubba, and what you appear to fail to understand, is that those who are terrorists – those who use terrorism, death and destruction of innocents – are set aside as a special sort of awful. Universally.
Those who abuse animals sexually are set aside as a special sort of awful. Universally.
Similarly, those who kill babies, or those who rob, beat or abuse children, or molest children sexually. These are all especially awful behaviors.
By lumping in gay folk (many of whom are celibate until marriage, many of whom are living in faithful loving marriage relationships, leading lives of goodness and Christian goodwill and grace) in with these especially egregious behaviors, you are not merely disagreeing with a behavior, you are demonizing. That is the problem. To do that to a group that has already been historically demonized and oppressed only exacerbates the problem.
I can explain the problem for you, but I can’t understand it for you. That is up to you.
To answer your question: No, I am not oppressing terrorists or sexual abusers of innocent, helpless animals by calling that demonstrably oppressive and harmful behavior “the very worst.” The harm that such behavior causes is observable and demonstrable and speaks for itself.
To call oppressors “oppressors” and abusers “abusers” is not oppressive or abusive. It is speaking facts, if indeed the facts support it.
If you all prefer, go on and think that all these good, decent, sometimes Christian people out there are wrong and you are right. Keep doing that until your numbers dwindle down to the tens of thousands and then to the thousands (hey, at least you’ll still have extremist Muslims on your side!). Just say that we are the ones oppressing and hang on to your certainty. But just realize you’ll be increasingly alone in doing so (well, again, with the exception of fundamentalists from other faith traditions).
~Dan
Bubba…
They just don’t have the right to group sets of immoral behavior in ways that Dan doesn’t like
A question, Bubba: Recently, a Baptist Home for Children here in Kentucky fired their director. Why? Because the director came out and said, “You know, we really should let qualified gay folk work here.” They fired him.
Do you think that an organization has the right and responsibility to fire an employee who makes public statements contrary to their value system?
While I disagree strongly with the Baptists’ decision to fire this guy, I/we recognize they have that right. In the same way, A&E has the right to fire this fella, if they so choose, for speaking values contrary to theirs – especially values they deem as dangerous and harmful.
Do you support the Baptists’ and A&E’s right to fire these people?
~Dan
Dan, he wasn’t “quite literally” demonizing homosexuals by listing them along with drunkards and terrorists, and you cannot possibly believe he was UNLESS you thinks drunks and terrorists are literal demons.
And you don’t seem to mind the man’s statements about WHOLE GROUPS of people so long as you share his disapproval of their behavior — drunkenness, terrorism, adultery, idolatry, sleeping around etc.
But if it really is wrong — slanderous, and uncharitable, and arrogant, and using the entirely wrong tone — to group together sinners whose behaviors aren’t EXACTLY morally equivalent, I must repeat the questions I raised in my first comment, which was published a little while after I wrote it.
If this sort of lumping-in is evil, what do you think about 1 Corinthians 6, which Robertson was quite clearly paraphrasing? Is it wrong to lump together idolators, thieves, and drunkards?
Was Paul wrong, in Romans 1, to group together mere envy and outright murder, and to group together the ruthless with the merely foolish, and slanderers with those who are disobedient to their parents? Was he wrong to write, in verse 32, about “God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die”?
Was Jesus wrong, in Matthew 5, to state that mere hatred and lust are as evil as actual murder and adultery?
You’re grasping for straws in trying to attack Robertson’s specific comments while defending the general right to express the belief that homosexuality is immoral. You’re making yourself look foolish, and so you probably shouldn’t express concern about others marginalizing themselves with their words — concern that I’m sure you’re quite sincere about.
That’s an interesting question, Dan, but it’s wholly irrelevant to your apparent belief that people don’t have the right to make groupings you don’t like, since those groupings are slanderous, slander causes harm, and your rights end at harm.
I’ve already addressed that issue that question raises, at some length, quoting Ace of Spades’ comment that A&E has the right to punish Robertson AND the right to encourage free expression, the latter of which is being largely ignored in the discussion.
Then by referring to alcoholism as a “sin” you are helping oppress the alcoholic. By saying that greed is a sin you are helping oppress the Wall Street types who have no compunction admitting their love of money. By saying promiscuity is a sin you are oppressing the heterosexual fornicator. Etc, etc, etc. You offer some of the most ridiculous excuses I’ve ever heard. Pointing out sin is now an oppression? On who? The Devil? Get real.
He didn’t compare the two; he pointed out various types of sin, that also includes heterosexual fornicators.
Then people obviously misunderstood his remarks. He was pointing out sin according to the Bible. Is it your belief, Dan, that terrorism is completely benign and in no way a sin? Is it your belief, Dan, that alcoholism is completely benign and in no way a sin? Is it your belief, Dan, that promiscuity is completely benign and in no way a sin? Is it your belief, Dan, that the love of money is completely benign and in no way a sin?
Not if it violates federal law, no.
Yes. But hating Jews is not Biblical or part of any religion. And being Jewish – part of the race – is not something one can control; it is an innate quality. It has never been shown that homosexuality is an innate quality. Never. You homosexual enablers will not turn homosexuality into something comparable to race or gender, no matter how hard you try. You want homosexuality to be viewed as though it were something innate. Prove it.
If Robertson was a Muslim I’d defend him, so don’t even go there, Dan.
Like homosexuality. I agree.
It’s bigoted to believe in the Bible? Aren’t you a bigot then? You claim to be a Christian.
Phil Robertson should sue A&E and he will win. This is religious discrimination and nothing more.
Common sense.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, Dan, but if you’re going to say that Robertson’s views are immoral, then you are obviously not a Bible-believing Christian. You want the Bible to be diluted. You want to dilute your own faith, your own salvation, so as to conform to PC standards. Nonsense. And not only that, it’s a violation of federal law. Employers CANNOT punish one for their religious beliefs. YET that is exactly what is happening to Phil Robertson.
No, not really.
THEY ARE NOT OPINIONS! THEY ARE FACTS! It is a fact that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Bible and the Christian faith. And are homosexuals being denied their religious liberty or something? Why do you keep saying that?
Sadie Robertson” Si, the speed limit said 35, you´re going 55″
Si Robertson”Oh, that´s just a suggestion”
You gotta love this family, The gay lobby has a lot of power and as always these progressives think their morality is greater than everybody else. So they´re fine with the first amendment right to free speech as long as they agree with it. If not, they shut you down. In my book that´s called fascism. So they talk about Christ, and in this case “The Patriarch” of the family stated his belief´s. You may not agree with him, but why shut him down? And this idiots think they are always on the right side with their misguided principles which are if you don´t agree with me or you don´t think what I think I´m coming after you. That´s great. It only happens to conservatives and specially to Christians, not a very good Christian myself but weather I agree with his remarks or not, doesn´t matter, is his right to express them off the show and if he wants on the show. Like the gay people do.
The fact that Dan and his ilk continually give people like Alec Baldwin a pass for his anti gay slurs while jumping on Phil, really says it all.
Why does Dan always find a problem with “condemning an entire group”? I condemn ALL murderers. Isn’t that a group? I condemn all thieves!
Why is it wrong to speak out against people, individually or as “a group”, FOR DOING something we believe is wrong?
My argument is and remains:
Robertson has the right to express his opinion about what is and isn’t sin.
A&E has the right to fire people not holding to their value system.
My argument is and remains:
The director of Baptist Homes for Children has a right to say, “I think we should hire qualified gay people.”
Baptist Homes has a right to say, “We will fire you if you publicly come out in support of hiring gay folk.”
Where exactly has that argument been dismantled?
That you favor you keeping your rights but oppose others having the same liberty? That actually is a dismantling (whether you recognize it or not) of your argument, because you are arguing in favor of the principle I’m advocating, BUT you’re dismantling your favor for it by your one-sided, hypocritical application of the principle.
Your right to religious liberty ends at the oppression of another’s rights of religious liberty.
My point stands and no amount of ad hom attacks and false witness have undermined it yet.
~Dan
Trabue,
Your initial argument was that Phil Robertson talked “trash” about “gay folk” and that what he said was immoral, thereby giving A&E a good reason to suspend him.
Since Robertson did NOT talk “trash,” but instead told the truth, that part of your argument has been effectively dismantled.
Since what Robertson said was NOT immoral, that part of your argument was effectively dismantled.
Does A&E have the right to suspend people for ANY reason? You betcha, But if a Christian station would have suspended someone for saying same-sex fake marriage was good, the LEFTISTS, like YOU, would have been all over it.
You’ve been proven to be a heretic, a non-Christian, and selective in your outrage. And not a single person here resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Now go troll elsewhere.
Oh, and demonstrably, God has not come out in opposition to all gay behavior. God has not come out in opposition to marriage for gay folk. It hasn’t happened. No amount of your repeating your opinions will ever make your opinions the same as God’s Word.
~Dan
Oh, and demonstrably, God has not come out in opposition to all gay behavior. God has not come out in opposition to marriage for gay folk. It hasn’t happened. No amount of your repeating your opinions will ever make your opinions the same as God’s Word.
Another example of the bald-faced lies Trabue has to keep spewing to give backing to his support of the perversion of homosexual behavior. It has been proven at least a hundred times on the many blogs he’s been on that God unequivocally condemned ALL homosexual behavior in the same way He condemned also zoophilic behavior. And then he has the gall to call it “opinions.” Does it matter that for at least 4000 years the Jews have recognized God’s abhorrence of homosexual behavior? Does it matter that the Christians for over 2000 years have recognized the true teachings of the Bible in regard to homosexual behavior? NOPE, not to faux-Christian Trabue. He puts his trust in liberal teachers of the past few decades who just happened to discover something in the Bible which was never discovered before – God actually approves of homosexual behavior if they are in a “committed” relationship! I’d say that discovery belongs with Joseph Smiths discovery of the Book of Mormon and that God is really a man who lives on another planet with millions of wives.
Hi Dan,
You seem to find equating homosexuality with bestiality (not that that’s what Robertson was DOING) offensive. Do you have something against bestialists? Do you discriminate against them? Why? How does their having sex with animals harm YOU? Who are you to tell bestialists what animals they can or cannot love? What? Animals are incapable of consent? Says who? Because animals can’t speak the English word, “YES?” Who are YOU to limit what constitutes “consent?” Don’t you see how offensive it is to lump an entire group of people who simply have a different sexual orientation than you with “the worst of sinners?” You can make all the rationalizations you want, but you can’t hide the fact that you simply HATE bestialists. For shame!
Of course I’m being facetious, and of course you probably think the above is ridiculous and would never come to fruition. But WHY? Do not think for ONE MOMENT that the Party in the business of redefining words like “human,” “person,” “racism,” “hate,” “marriage,” and not to mention “gay” will not attempt to redefine “consent” the moment it suits their purposes. Just give bestialists a platform in the media for a few decades. They will portray bestialists as attractive, funny, witty, happy, loving, well adjusted, healthy and Fido will be the happiest dog that ever lived. Pretty soon the entire culture will be falling over themselves to include bestialists under the ever expanding umbrella of “marriage,” and you will show up here lecturing us Bible believing Christians about our hatred, our bigotry, and our outdated “archaic” beliefs.
Conservative2cents, the unstated difference can only be one thing: homosexuals have Protected Minority Status while thieves and zoophiles don’t.
—
About the latter… Robertson mentioned a specific activity which Dan has asserted is uniquely evil, to the point that mentioning the act alongside homosexual relationships is ITSELF evil. It’s an icky topic, but let’s go there.
Dan, why exactly is bestiality immoral?
I agree it’s immoral, but I’m curious about your rationale for that position, much more than I am discussing where the act lies in the master list of sins. (I’d be hard pressed to declare with any certainty that the act is more evil than the sins of Cain, Joseph’s brothers, the Israelites re the golden calf, David re Bathsheba, Herod, Caiaphas, Pilate, and Judas.)
I put it to you that you cannot possibly argue for the immorality of the act without either undercutting your arguments for homosexuality OR arguing for a society that is radically different than ours in our dependence on animal husbandry — a society where universal veganism is the bare minimum.
– You cannot possibly use that line from the children’s song, “for the Bible tells me so,” because the act is mentioned even less than homosexual relationships, and it’s not mentioned at all in the New Testament.
(You ever wonder why, in Mark 7:11, Christ condemned dishonoring one’s parents by invoking an now obscure term of “Corban,” where those resources are ostensibly dedicated to God, but He never condemned the act of child sacrifice? Is it more likely that Christ’s teachings were systematic and comprehensive, or that He was addressing the specific problems of first-century Palestine, where parents no longer had children pass through the fire as an offering to Molech? Is it not possible that Jesus mentioned divorce but not sodomy because, even under Roman rule, one was a prominent social malady for his contemporary Jews while the other wasn’t?)
– You cannot argue from an “ick factor,” or question-begging assumptions about God’s designs for human nature, or even a general consensus since the subject of same-sex “marriage” proves just how fluid polls can be. You certainly don’t accept such arguments when it comes to SSM — not the revulsion many have about the act, not arguments from nature, and not the fact that voters have generally continued to affirm the traditional definition of marriage.
– You could mention your favorite standard of harm, but we’d have to be brutally honest. Everyone should forgive me for being this blunt, but coitus with a large non-human mammal — a large dog or livestock — is probably less physically damaging to all involved than is sodomy between humans.
– Even psychological harm is hard to argue universally, as — again, being brutally honest — we must concede that some animals aren’t very discriminating when they’re in heat. They’ll be amorous with anything that moves and many things that don’t move, and there are probably farmers who are more gentle with their special lamb than some abusive husbands are to their wives. (We wouldn’t want to make sweeping negative generalizations about an entire group, would we?)
– And you could mention consent as a prerequisite for sexual relations, but that begs the question, why should we group zoophilia with romantic human relationships instead of comparing it to other things done with and to animals? Some of us kill for sport, many of us castrate ostensibly beloved house pets, and the vast majority of humans depend on slaughtering animals for food and clothing. Why is it okay to kill a cow to make hamburgers and boots, but not okay to establish a gentle, loving relationship with Betsy?
If we must not do anything negative to animals without the consent we cannot possibly get — or at least to certain categories of animals, higher order species, as if we have the right to distinguish between apes and ants — then it probably wouldn’t be enough to transition to a purely vegan society that eschewed wool and leather for cotton. After all, we would still displace countless birds and mammals when we cleared land for farming, even if that land is for orchards rather than pastures.
No, we’d have to reject both animal husbandry and EVEN the agricultural revolution. We’d have to revert to a true primitivism, where we forage for berries.
Again, Dan, I believe that zoophilia is wrong even in the most gentle cases of loving one’s pet in that entirely inappropriate manner, but I don’t think there exists a credible argument for its immorality that doesn’t demolish your arguments against traditional ethics regarding homosexuality. I certainly don’t believe you have the rhetorical chops to prove me wrong.
So prove me wrong.
I believe you have no good reason to insist that it’s fine to group homosexuals with blacks and Jews but beyond the pale to group them with zoophiles. You draw these lines, not because they’re rational, but because their expedient.
Comparing the behavior condemned in Leviticus 18:22 with that condemned in THE VERY NEXT VERSE isn’t evil. It’s just inconvenient, and since you can’t dismantle the comparison with logic, you’re trying to discredit the comparison with moral outrage: you can’t argue against it, so you’re going to scream bloody murder about it.
What’s the saying? “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
You’re leaning on demagoguery because that’s all ya got.
But you’re more than welcome to prove me wrong.
To give an example of legal not being right – over in Europe there are animal brothels for those who are in to bestiality. Are these people visiting such brothels sinning in Dan’s world? As has been demonstrated above, his arguments against such brothels would also be against homosexual behavior.
Mike…
Do you have something against bestialists? Do you discriminate against them? Why? How does their having sex with animals harm YOU? Who are you to tell bestialists what animals they can or cannot love? What? Animals are incapable of consent?
Yes, I have something against ANYone who inflicts unwanted harm on others, especially innocents incapable of giving consent. So those who abuse animals, those who abuse children, those who embrace terrorism to harm and kill innocent bystanders, these are an especially egregious group of sinners.
And yes, animals are incapable of giving informed human consent. Do you not understand why? Because they are not HUMAN. And Bubba, that answers your question, too.
If you all can’t understand that distinction, more’s the pity for you.
Is it really the case that IF it’s not in the Bible, you all are incapable of forming moral opinions? Again, if so, more’s the pity for you.
God created us in God’s image, as moral agents with God-given reasoning. And indeed, the Bible teaches us this. We don’t have to rely solely upon the Bible (or some religious zealots’/fundamentalists’ view of what the Bible means) to make moral judgments. Do you honestly disagree?
And is Craig the only one besides me here who is morally and rationally consistent?
I (and I believe Craig) will affirm both the Baptist Homes’ right to fire someone who makes a public claim with values don’t match theirs AND A&E’s exact same right. It sounds like many here would like to afford a right to the Baptist Homes, that they’re not willing to afford to A&E. Ie, hypocrisy. ie, intellectual dishonestly. ie, you’re not really in favor of religious liberty as much as just wanting to get your own way and to hell with everyone else’s values.
But perhaps I’m mistaken. Will you all agree with me (and perhaps Craig) and support religious liberty EVEN for those who disagree with you?
~Dan
I knew Trabue would go to the “harm” and “consent” issues with bestiality. Of course he ignores all the demonstrated harm from homosexual behavior – denies it, marginalizes it, etc.
I want Trabue to explain what harm comes to an animal from having sex with it? And if you need consent for sex with an animal, then why don’t you need consent to eat an animal, or keep it enslaved as a pet, or all the other uses we find for animals? Do you ask cows for their consent to take their milk?
Why does it have to be “human” to have sex with it? What rule are you looking at for that, Trabue, which doesn’t also apply to not having sex with one of the same gender?
What other sources besides the Bible do we get our morals from? Christians – real Christians – do indeed rely solely on the Bible for our morals.
There is nothing morally or rationally consistent with Trabue.
Dan, in summarizing what your argument “is and remains,” you didn’t mention your repeated claim that it’s “EVIL” to group homosexuals with drunks or other sinners.
Are you now retracting that claim?
“Robertson has the right to express his opinion about what is and isn’t sin.”
Does he also have the right to group homosexuals with other sinners? I ask because you DID argue 1) that one’s rights end where another’s being, such as when harm is caused, 2) that slander is harm, and 3) that Robertson’s comments were slanderous.
The implication is obvious, though you can’t bring yourself to say it: you must not think that Robertson doesn’t have the right to say EVERYTHING that he said.
Are you now retracting that claim?
Or are you just focusing on your least controversial claims and pretending that that’s the sum total of your argument? I’ve seen that game before, when you focus on the undisputed claim that God blesses marriage to shirk your responsibility to justify the truly controversial premise that marriage is essentially androgynous.
—
“Oh, and demonstrably, God has not come out in opposition to all gay behavior. God has not come out in opposition to marriage for gay folk. It hasn’t happened. No amount of your repeating your opinions will ever make your opinions the same as God’s Word.”
No one here is arguing that God opposes a gay man marrying a woman with her informed consent, or a lesbian marrying a man: you’re assuming what no honest reading of the Bible would suggest, that marriage is androgynous.
Have you not read that, from the beginning, God made us male and female so that a man would leave his family and become one flesh with his wife? Of course you’ve read it, we’ve discussed it often enough, you just refuse to draw the obvious relevant conclusion because you don’t like that conclusion.
But tell me this, where SPECIFICALLY has God come out in explicit opposition to ALL instances of a SPECIFIC behavior?
Where has God condemned all instances of zoophilia — or if he hasn’t, just how do you know that behavior is so uniquely evil that it’s wrong even to mention it in the same sentence as homosexual relationships?
—
You’re obviously playing dumb, Dan.
The real kick is that you’re not smart enough to play dumb well. Fans of Tropic Thunder know exactly what scene you’re reminding me of.
I’m pretty sure that you’re too good of a father to put up with this sort of behavior from your own kid: you wouldn’t let her get away with being this deliberately obtuse.
Should we not treat God as we ourselves would like to be treated? Or do you really think He smiles upon the intellectual equivalent of plugging your ears to pretend that He mumbles?
You’re not addressing the substance of my argument at all, Dan.
“Yes, I have something against ANYone who inflicts unwanted harm on others, especially innocents incapable of giving consent. So those who abuse animals, those who abuse children, those who embrace terrorism to harm and kill innocent bystanders, these are an especially egregious group of sinners.
“And yes, animals are incapable of giving informed human consent. Do you not understand why? Because they are not HUMAN. And Bubba, that answers your question, too.”
No, it doesn’t.
1) Surely not all instances of zoophilia causes harm, as a 200-lb farmer doesn’t compare to a 1500-lb bull.
2) Even in cases where harm occurs, it surely doesn’t compare to the harm that is ubiquitous in society, on every Main Street, in McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, on people’s feet and on their plates.
QUESTION: If you oppose zoophilia because it causes harm without consent, why don’t you ALSO oppose slaughtering animals for food and clothing?
I’d say that being killed and cooked is far worse than a Saturday evening in front of the fire, especially for larger dogs and livestock where physical harm is unlikely. Why do you apparently disagree?
And, Dan:
“Will you all agree with me (and perhaps Craig) and support religious liberty EVEN for those who disagree with you?”
It’s not actually clear that you DO support religious liberty “EVEN” for those with whom you disagree.
It’s a good rule of thumb that when a person says, “I believe in X, but…” he’s about to oppose what he says he believes.
You say A&E “can’t discriminate against Robertson for his religious beliefs.”
But then you IMMEDIATELY begin arguing against Robertson’s rights to say what he did.
“IF they find his comparison to be evil and immoral, do you think they should be forced to employ him even if it is contrary to their value system?”
Was that comparison somehow unmoored from his religious beliefs?
“Your religious liberty does not extend to oppressing others. So no, it is NOT against the law to oppose slanderous, immoral statements and hold your employees accountable for their slanderous, immoral words.”
You imply that his comments were slanderous, immoral, and (somehow) oppressive.
Tell us again how you occupy the moral high ground in defending religious liberty for your opponents.
Dan, really, this one sentence is like an onion of nonsense: you can just keep peeling away, and you find one fatuous implication after another.
“Yes, I have something against ANYone who inflicts unwanted harm on others, especially innocents incapable of giving consent.”
If you really mean that you oppose “ANYone who inflicts unwanted harm on others,” then you must oppose the criminal justice system, as imprisonment is surely harmful — at a minimum, injurious to a person’s freedom — and you say you’re opposed to such harm “especially” to innocents who cannot give consent, but not EXCLUSIVELY to them.
And let us NEVER forget how you’ll whitewash abortion by alluding to it as a mere medical procedure.
Obviously, you just haven’t thought through after-the-fact rationalization for why you oppose zoophilia. You find things that are bad about the act — lack of consent and harm (even though harm IS NOT always the result) — and you latch onto those aspects without addressing why those same aspects don’t disqualify other acts.
“And is Craig the only one besides me here who is morally and rationally consistent?”
You’re morally and rationally consistent? I’m Donald Duck.
Glenn, that’s the key question: “And if you need consent for sex with an animal, then why don’t you need consent to eat an animal, or keep it enslaved as a pet, or all the other uses we find for animals?”
Dan evidently has no problem insisting that sometimes a particular question must be answered before he will continue with a conversation. I believe that Dan ought to be required to answer this question, to explain why it’s moral to slaughter animals for food and clothing but NOT engage in zoophilia.
Glenn…
Your initial argument was that Phil Robertson talked “trash” about “gay folk” and that what he said was immoral, thereby giving A&E a good reason to suspend him.
Yes, that IS my – and many others, including presumably, A&E’s – opinion. The question is, then: Do you think that people should be forced to keep in their employ someone whose values are significantly contrary to the business’ values? DO you think that the Baptists should be forced to retain their director, who dared to think they should employ gay folk? OR, do you think the Baptists are within their rights to fire someone who has publicly voiced opinions contrary to their agency’s?
I say No, they should not be forced to employ someone who has voiced opinions that they think are evil. I think that for the Baptists and I think that for A&E. I’m consistent in that way.
Or, contrariwise, YES, I think that the Baptists and A&E are within their rights to fire someone who has voiced opinions they consider to be evil/wrong/contrary to their values.
How about you?
~Dan
I say No, they should not be forced to employ someone who has voiced opinions that they think are evil. I think that for the Baptists and I think that for A&E. I’m consistent in that way.
Since Phil’s comments agreed with God’s, then they weren’t evil. But, yep, they have the right to fire anyone for any reason, and then they can suffer the consequences of lost revenues.
On the other side of the coin, I think it is any business’ right to refuse to provide a service for something they consider evil/wrong/contrary to their values. You know, like refusing to photograph a fake wedding, refusing to bake cakes for a fake wedding, refusing to provide a room at a B&B for immoral sexual relations. How about you? If you ARE consistent, then do you agree that the judges are wrong to force businesses to provide such service?
Glenn…
It has been proven at least a hundred times on the many blogs he’s been on that God unequivocally condemned ALL homosexual behavior in the same way He condemned also zoophilic behavior. And then he has the gall to call it “opinions.”
Yes, Glenn, when you offer opinions, I DO have “the gall” to call them “opinions.” That is the English word for “Opinions.” What do you suggest I should call your opinion?
As to it having been “proven,” I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word. You have offered your reasons why you hold your opinion. I do not find those reasons compelling and, thus, disagree with your opinions. You have not proven anything, other than a willingness on your part to conflate your opinions with facts and with God’s Word. That is a mistake, morally and rationally, I would politely point out.
Facts is facts, dear brother.
Yes, Glenn, when you offer opinions, I DO have “the gall” to call them “opinions.” That is the English word for “Opinions.” What do you suggest I should call your opinion?
I provided NO “opinion” as to what the Bible says about homosexuality. You can call it an opinion all you like, but that doesn’t make it so. It is a fact that the Bible is perspicuous as to homosexual activity being against nature, against God, and an abomination to God in every way – no exceptions. Keep calling that fact an opinion, just like you keep calling YOUR opinion that same-sex unions are “marriage” when the FACT is that they aren’t.
I know, you also think a leg is a tail.
Bubba…
“And if you need consent for sex with an animal, then why don’t you need consent to eat an animal, or keep it enslaved as a pet, or all the other uses we find for animals?”
That question has nothing to do with my point made on topic in this post. If you want to slide off to other off-topic rabbits to chase (with the rabbit’s consent, of course), I would just say that most of humanity recognizes the unjust and immoral nature of forcing an animal – contrary to will or any ability to give consent – into sex acts. We recognize it as wrong innately and nearly universally and there is no confusion about it.
On the other hand, having animals as companions or work animals does not seem to cause harm and generally speaking, seems to be mutually beneficial. Most of us do not confuse that with any serious harm. And animals eating animals is just a way of life, there does not seem to be anything inherently evil in the great circle of life, for most of us.
Of course, there are some who would disagree.
Regardless, we are moral agents with the ability to reason relatively well and we can make these decisions based on a variety of factors.
Are you seriously making the argument that, unless the Bible says it’s wrong, it isn’t wrong? Are you seriously making the argument that every line the Bible says is an endorsement of every behavior mentioned? Are you unable to form moral decisions outside of what the Bible says?
The problem is you all are trying to force the Bible into a Rule Book for All Ages, and when you find a line endorsing or condemning a behavior, you are trying to say that this is a rule for all people and all times and this means God opposes anything like this behavior (well, except for when you make exceptions). But the Bible is NOT a rule book. It never makes the claim to be a rule book so trying to force the Bible to be a rule book, trying to force it to be The One Source for all Sin Knowledge is doing something contrary to reason and contrary to what the Bible teaches. Ironically, the rules you all are making “because the Bible tells me so,” you are doing contrary to sound Biblical teaching about “scripture.”
I know that abusing animals is wrong, Bubba, I don’t need the Bible to tell me so. Is that the only reason you know it is wrong?
~Dan
Glenn…
Does A&E have the right to suspend people for ANY reason? You betcha, But if a Christian station would have suspended someone for saying same-sex fake marriage was good, the LEFTISTS, like YOU, would have been all over it.
? Okay, so what is the problem? You and I AGREE that A&E has the right to suspend Robertson, including for this reason, presumably. What are you griping about?
And yes, if some of us disagree with an organization’s position based on our moral values, we may very well protest it. But that is our right, which you appear to agree with.
What are you complaining about? You and I are in agreement on the principle.
~Dan
It’s funny, Dan, how you don’t hesitate to preen about your own consistency…
“And is Craig the only one besides me here who is morally and rationally consistent?”
“I think that for the Baptists and I think that for A&E. I’m consistent in that way.”
…but it’s somehow a gross digression to point out the inconsistencies of your position. It’s funny how much what you deem irrelevant seems to overlap with what we think is decisively inconvenient to your arguments and poses. It’s funny how I don’t think you’ve ever put a stop to a digression when you think the argument’s going your way.
You write, ” I would just say that most of humanity recognizes the unjust and immoral nature of forcing an animal – contrary to will or any ability to give consent – into sex acts. We recognize it as wrong innately and nearly universally and there is no confusion about it.”
Of course, until just a few short years ago, the unique and complementary nature of the man-woman relationship was nearly universally recognized, and that changed quickly, didn’t it? If zoophilia gains any sort of momentum, your argument evaporates.
And WHY is it wrong to force an animal into a whorehouse but not the slaughterhouse? Your answer to this other side of the equation is just as vapid.
“And animals eating animals is just a way of life, there does not seem to be anything inherently evil in the great circle of life, for most of us.”
Not all animals eat other animals, but if “animals eating animals” is just part of the “great circle of life,” so is “animals screwing animals.”
Is the sex drive any less natural than the appetite for food? No, and however wasted their efforts are, there are plenty of instances of animals trying to mate cross-species, even with the family dog that gets excited for a nearby human leg or one of the housecats.
Dan, you’re grossly distorting our approach to Scripture — your doing so isn’t a digression, evidently.
“The problem is you all are trying to force the Bible into a Rule Book for All Ages, and when you find a line endorsing or condemning a behavior, you are trying to say that this is a rule for all people and all times and this means God opposes anything like this behavior (well, except for when you make exceptions).”
The exceptions you say we make are largely drawn from the Bible’s own teachings. For instance, we don’t continue to insist upon OT kosher regulations because the NT is clear that they no longer apply: see Jesus’ teaching about what defiles a man, Peter’s dream, and the last chapter of Hebrews.
“But the Bible is NOT a rule book. It never makes the claim to be a rule book so trying to force the Bible to be a rule book, trying to force it to be The One Source for all Sin Knowledge is doing something contrary to reason and contrary to what the Bible teaches. Ironically, the rules you all are making ‘because the Bible tells me so,’ you are doing contrary to sound Biblical teaching about ‘scripture.’ ”
Does the Bible claim to be a book of Truths but not facts, or have you dropped that ridiculous claim?
And do you have any real qualms about the idea that, when Jesus taught to love God and love your neighbor, He probably thinks the command applies a bit more broadly than to the original, first-century Jewish audience?
—
About the Bible’s applicability for “All Ages,” does your copy come with an expiration date? Didn’t Jesus say something about how not one penstroke would pass away before the end of the universe?
It’s kinda funny how you think we’re the ones who treat Scripture as a rulebook, considering how much you fixate on “Jesus’ Way” to the exclusion of His doctrinal teachings about why He came and what His death accomplished.
“Doctrine that does not lead to good ethics, I got no use for.”
Guess which rules-obsessed conservative wrote that little line?
But, to your point, it’s not that we believe the Bible is EXHAUSTIVE, it’s that we think the Bible is AUTHORITATIVE.
It’s not, “whatever is true, is affirmed by the Bible.” It’s, “what’s affirmed by the Bible, is true.”
I for one have never shied away from affirming that the Bible isn’t a comprehensive and systematic textbook on theology: it’s one big reason I balk at your position that inerrancy could ONLY be reached if the Bible explicitly wrote that each of the 66 books are inerrant.
It’s not that we think the Bible covers every last subject, it’s that we think THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT is covered, at least well enough to preclude any real disagreements.
Earlier you wrote, “Jesus has not told us what to think about, for instance, marriage between two gay folk and Christians of good faith disagree on the topic.”
1) Jesus did affirm Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and scripture consistently and unequivocally condemns homosexual acts.
2) The New Testament records that, while Jesus and His hand-picked Apostles loosened dietary restrictions, they tightened the moral law regarding sexual morality, even equating lust with outright adultery.
3) Jesus personally affirmed the principle from Genesis 2, that, from the beginning, God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
These facts about Jesus’ teachings and the contents of Scripture rule out any real questions about “marriage between two gay folk,” and the only way you can pretend otherwise is by playing dumb — poorly.
It’s not that we’re neurotics who can’t tie our shoes unless the Bible tells us how: we’re Christians who believe what the Bible teaches, and the Bible unambiguously teaches that we were made for lifelong heterosexual monogamy.
“I know that abusing animals is wrong, Bubba, I don’t need the Bible to tell me so. Is that the only reason you know it is wrong?”
The Bible provides authoritative guidance, so what it teaches is sufficient. When the Bible teaches something, it doesn’t matter whether there are other reasons to reach the same conclusion, because as a Christian I don’t need those other reasons.
But, again, why are you so arbitrary in how you define animal abuse?
Lovingly caring for a pet and extending that love from friendship to romance, making sure that the companion is not harmed at all — when, again, sodomy between humans is probably more physically harmful than coitus with a large enough mammal? Why, that’s ABUSE! That’s wrong, and we all know it’s wrong.
Taking that animal, slitting its throat, draining its blood, skinning it and butchering it, grinding up its muscles into hamburger meat, grilling it and eat it even when vegetarianism is an entirely viable option? Well, a guy’s gotta eat: circle of life, and all that.
There are zoophiles in the world and even discrete businesses that cater to their needs. Surely you must know how unconvincing that distinction is, denouncing all instances of romance with man’s best friend while turning a blind eye to large-scale slaughter.
I had no idea that the cross-species version of a romantic getaway was so much worse than an animal Auschwitz.
Another thought:
About zoophilia, Dan, you write, “We recognize it as wrong innately and nearly universally and there is no confusion about it.”
Nearly universally! And you note that there are people who disagree, but they’re surely outside the mainstream, right?
How’s about this? Suppose the subject had already become sufficiently mainstream that a famous philosopher and bioethics professor at Princeton wrote that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.” Suppose he did so TWELVE YEARS AGO, which would be BEFORE Lawrence v. Texas and the subsequent Massachusetts ruling that first required recognition of same-sex marriages.
If that had happened, could we no longer argue from consensus that bestiality is wrong?
I don’t really have the energy or desire to go into the problems with your exegetical approach, Bubba, but I’ll give it one quick stab…
When the Bible teaches something, it doesn’t matter whether there are other reasons to reach the same conclusion, because as a Christian I don’t need those other reasons.
And WHEN does the Bible “teach something…”? When it says, “If a man lies with a man, it is wrong…” that is teaching (in your opinion) that any and all gay behavior in any and all contexts and times is wrong? The text does not “teach” that, nor does it “teach” that this is God’s opinion (that any and all gay behavior is wrong, always, everywhere). That is a human interpretation, not the Bible “teaching something…”
Do you see the difference? Not yet?
Okay, and when the bible says “if a man lies with a man, you should kill them both” is that the Bible “teaching something…”? What is it teaching, that we should kill any and all men lying with men in any and all contexts and times? Because the Bible does not say that and, interestingly, you don’t think that, I don’t believe (I hope not, cause that’d be crazy and evil and you would have to be stopped from entertaining that fantasy belief).
But if that is NOT the Bible “teaching something” like “kill the gays who have sex…” why isn’t it?
Because the Bible is not a rule book, it is a book of wisdom and truth. It is not a history book, it is a book of wisdom and truth. It is not a science book, it is a book of wisdom and truth.
The Bible doesn’t “teach something…” and all we have to do is look at the rules and sort out which ones apply today. That is specifically NOT what the Bible teaches. It is the opposite of what the Bible teaches, along with basic reasoning and morality.
Do you see the disconnect between good, biblical, rational and moral exegesis and what you appear to be advocating?
~Dan
Trabue talking about hermeneutics – hysterical. The man couldn’t properly exegete a passage if his life depended on it. His whole theology is based on eisegesis.
Except that you can cite zero instances of me doing eisegesis, to support this theory. As typical, Glenn, this is another off topic ad hom attack, and a false witness, to boot.
I’d hope in this holiday season that you might take some time to humbly reflect upon your “debate” style, Dear Glenn, and realize that bluster and bullying does not a point make.
In Christ,
Dan
We’ve cited over and over again your eisegesis, Trabue. Every passage dealing with homosexuality is re-interpreted by you. In fact, just about every passage you cite has been proven to be poorly interpreted. On every site you visit.
So quit pretending it has never been done. No false witness has been borne at all, you liar. Nor were there any ad hominem attacks made. (I really wish you’d learn what that means!)
Trabue:
You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right. You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
So did I just make an ad hominem attack?
So Dan,
Since we agree and all, can you show me where you called for MSNBC to fire Martin Bashir or NBC (Capital One etc.) to fire Alec Baldwin when those stories broke. Or can you explain why the same gay advocacy groups jumping on Phil by distorting what he said are willing to give Baldwin a free pass because he’s on their side?
Since, you’ve decided to try to use me to bolster your shaky position, that you agree with me that A&E is acting stupidly by doing this kind of potential damage to their highest rated show. As well as the rest of the points from my earlier comment.
If you actually look at the comments that started all this it boils down to we’re all sinners in need of a savior. How can any reasonably orthodox christian object to that sentiment. For the record, a number of the sins Phil mentioned are sins he has publicly acknowledged committing.
Bubba,
Good luck getting Dan to acknowledge your point about the inherent physical harm caused by anal sex. In the face of plenty of actual evidence (including a link that Dan provided) demonstrating the high risks of physical harm Dan just couldn’t bring himself to agree with the Dr.’s. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Mr Chatfield: You are a beloved child of God and, because of Christ our Lord, my dear brother. Embrace Grace, dear man.
Craig…
can you show me where you called for MSNBC to fire Martin Bashir or NBC (Capital One etc.) to fire Alec Baldwin when those stories broke.
I am not familiar with either of these stories (or is it one story?). Being unfamiliar with them, I have not staked out an opinion on them. I don’t usually post commentary on stories with which I’m not familiar. I find that wisest.
Craig…
that you agree with me that A&E is acting stupidly by doing this kind of potential damage to their highest rated show.
Perhaps, IF one is primarily interested in the bottom line. If they are taking a stand upon principle (ie, they believe – as do I – that Robertson’s comments are wrong and evil-spirited), then I commend them for taking a stand upon principle – even if it hurts their bottom line.
I assume you would agree that we ought to stand on principle rather than making decisions based on mere, base greed motivations?
~Dan
Glenn…
Every passage dealing with homosexuality is re-interpreted by you.
Although this is an off topic diversion, I will just point out that when I left the position I used to hold – the one you hold now – I did so because, looking at Scripture, I saw that those crucial and oft-cited two passages from Leviticus were IN CONTEXT not at all a call for modern people to follow these rules. In context, those were rules specifically for Israel, specifically for that time.
Looking at those passages, IN CONTEXT, it appears to me that because the author is citing specifically pagan cultures that Israel was supposed to be different than, that IN CONTEXT, it makes more sense that these two passages were speaking specifically of pagan ritualistic sex practices, not a general condemnation of all gay behavior for all people in all cultures and times.
Since eisegesis means reading INTO a passage something of one’s own ideas that isn’t there, I’m sort of doing the opposite, aren’t I? I’m abandoning reading into the passage something that isn’t there (that is, the text doesn’t say these are rules for everyone for everywhere and time, THAT is a reading into it something that isn’t there) and looking at THE CONTEXT to reach what seems to me to be a more biblical, more reasonable position. Again, I remind you, my starting point was the presumption that gay behavior was wrong and that this is what the Bible says. So, if I was reading into the text something of my own ideas, it would have been ideas that agreed with your ideas – that is, our cultural views. But I had to abandon that eisegesis in seeking something more biblical and rational, as opposed to reading into it what I wanted.
Sort of the opposite of eisegesis, isn’t it?
Again, you have zero evidence of any eisegesis on my part. Demonstrated again for you.
Merry Christmas my dear brothers. Seriously.
~Dan
Trabue, We’ve heard this story so many times, and it is just as fraudulent each time.
The proper exegesis of the passages have been demonstrated to you too many times, and yet you here again say there is no evidence of eisegesis on your part. In context they do NOT say what you claim they say, and that has been demonstrated over and over and over. All throughout history they’ve always been interpreted as we have interpreted them, but YOU and you liberal friends say that throughout history everyone has been wrong and only YOU have the real answer. Such hubris.
You didn’t respond to my last one asking if what I said was ad hominem.
Trabue
My question was serious. Did I make an ad hominem attack in that comment? (4 above this one)
Dan,
I’d be happy to provide you with some remedial current events education, but I suspect you’d just accuse me of slanting my version of events, so I’ll suggest you just fire up the Google and search for yourself.
As far as a decision made on principle, I’d be more likely to believe that had A&E not already edited the show to make it seem “less Christian” (Adding in bleeps with no reason and editing out the name of Jesus in prayers). I’d also be more likely to believe it if A&E’s line up was a little more noble. A&E is a business their ultimate responsibility is to the shareholders. I think that even you would have to admit that pissing off the fans of the most popular show on on cable is a stupid move.
I do have to say that your ability to discern the motivation of someone about whom you obviously know very little is quite impressive. I think that most rational folks would say that since all he really did was paraphrase a passage from the Bible that it might be a stretch to impute “evil-spirited” motives to him. Especially if one considers the context of what he actually said.
Glen,
Of course your comment was an evil spirited, slanderous, ad hom, attack. What else could it possibly be in Dan world. :)
Craig, the comment was an off topic ad hom. My comments on topic were quite clear. You and even Glenn appear to agree with the principle offered in my actual comments. As to my topics, Glenn agrees… BUT, then he goes on several attacks on the person that have nothing to do with my comments. They are, by definition, ad hom attacks.
Facts are facts, friends.
Glenn…
The proper exegesis of the passages have been demonstrated to you too many times, and yet you here again say there is no evidence of eisegesis on your part. In context they do NOT say what you claim they say, and that has been demonstrated over and over and over.
What you have done, over and over, is offer the reasons why YOU think the way you do. Why YOU hold your extrabiblical opinion on this topic. I do not find your opinions compelling. So, when one asks, “SAYS WHO?” the answer is, Glenn and his compatriots. But Glenn and his compatriots are not the end all and be all of wisdom.
I am certain that you are Christian enough and humble enough to admit the rationality of this point. Yes? All wisdom does not begin and end with you and those who agree with you, right?
And so, in this case, you find your reasons compelling (in short, “It says ‘men don’t lay with men,’ therefore, that is ‘obviously’ a condemnation of all gay behavior… ’nuff said…”). I and my compatriots do not find that reasoning to be biblical or rational at all. And fortunately for all of us, you do not get to speak for all of Christianity. We have this great priesthood of believers and the beautiful, holy responsibility where we all must seek to follow God and our conscience rather than blindly agree with mere men and their opinions.
And so, as we strive to follow God, we must go with what seems most reasonable, biblical and moral to us, EVEN IF we disagree with Glenn’s opinions.
There is nothing else for me and my tribe to do but to try to follow God, not Glenn.
I hope you can respect this sentiment, even if you disagree with our conclusions we have reached through prayer, Bible study and basic reasoning.
Merry Christmas, ye Christian gentlemen, may God rest you,
~Dan
And Craig, just to make it clear: The topic here is Robertson’s comments and whether or not A&E is right in suspending him/holding him accountable to their values.
I commented on the topic a point that we all appear to agree upon: Yes, A&E is within their rights to do this.
Glenn responds with this, “to Trabue:”
You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right. You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
WHERE is there any discussion of my points made (principles that Glenn agrees with)? WHERE is there any other than a direct and goofy attack on a fellow Christian, one saved by God’s grace and who can not be separated from God’s Love by either powers above, or powers below, or Glenn’s opinions? Where is this anything but lies and off topic attacks?
It is, by definition, a direct ad hom attack, attacking me rather than my arguments (again, the principle of which even Glenn AGREES with). It is what it is.
May we all embrace the reason for the season, fellas,
~Dan Trabue
Trabue,
PROOF that you don’t know what an ad hominem attack is. The statement I made, which I asked if it was an ad hominem, was nothing more than describing who and what you are and why you continue with false teaching, why you continue to say we just have an opinion of what the Bible says (which just happens to agree with thousands of years of Jews and Christians reading the same things), while YOU have the correct interpretation.
My statement was a direct quote from the Bible: Paul was saying this to Elymas, a sorcerer who continued to oppose his teaching and tried to turn someone away from the faith that Paul had taught him. Was Paul making an ad hominem attack?!?! He was fed up with what the guy was doing with his false teachings and he identified what the man was!
And you are indeed of the Devil, because you help to promote one of the worst types of sexual perversions and immorality, which is leading to the destruction of society, and and going against God.
And you never did respond to my question if you were going to remain consistent and stand behind the photographers who don’t want to photographed queer “weddings,” and the baker who didn’t want to make a cake for a queer “wedding,” etc. You have vilified them in the past as being discriminatory and yet you thing A&E has a right to do the same thing to Christians. YOU STINKING HYPOCRITE!
Craig…
A&E is a business their ultimate responsibility is to the shareholders. I think that even you would have to admit that pissing off the fans of the most popular show on on cable is a stupid move.
As to A&E’s motives, I’ll have to admit that I do not know them at all and would not begin to assume that they have only pure motives. At the same time, since I do not know them at all, I would not begin to presume that they have only evil motives, either. I was simply speaking to the principle – one with which you and Glenn agree.
And again, “pissing off” a fan base is stupid from a purely financial point of view, but I do not hold values that say that we should judge things based on purely financial points of view. I’m sure you do, too.
If so, then we once again agree on the principle.
If there is all this agreement on principles, why then all the kicking at the goads?
~Dan
Stop quibbling over who said what and whether it constitutes an ad hom. Just discuss the topic at hand.
Exactly what I’m suggesting, Terrance.
So Terrance, on topic: The Baptist Home for Children recently fired a director for saying he thinks they should be willing to hire qualified gay folk (aaaggghh!! shudder!). The very conservative Board voted to fire this fella for making this public statement.
Do you support the Baptists being able to fire this director, or was it a conflict of that director’s freedom of religion?
If you support the Baptists being able to fire this guy for making that suggestion publicly, then why do you not support A&E being able to fire/suspend their guy?
~Dan
Glenn, what you are describing IS an ad hom attack. By definition.
And as a point of fact, I am not “of the devil,” I just disagree with your very human, very arrogant opinion about what God thinks about gay folk marrying. If I’m mistaken, then I’m a Christian (ie, “of God”) who is mistaken. If YOU are mistaken, then you are a Christian who is mistaken. Christianity does not teach that we are never mistaken, right? Of course not.
You see, the great thing about Christianity (orthodox Christianity, anyway) is that it is a salvation based upon Grace, NOT upon our perfect knowledge. Therefore, when Christians are genuinely mistaken on some point or the other (and we ALL are mistaken sometimes, Glenn, that is a biblical teaching and one that is easily observable), we do not “lose our salvation” because we were mistaken. Rather, we are mistaken. That is it. God’s grace is sufficient to cover our misunderstandings and human foibles.
A point we should all be grateful for in this Holiday Season.
May we all be thankful for that sweet grace by which we are saved.
Love ya, bud. Merry Christmas!
~Dan
Trabue,
No, you are of the devil. Because YOU teach homosexuality as being okay with God, and only the devil would promote such blasphemy.
In order for you to say that was an ad hominem attack, you’d have to say Paul made an ad hominem attack, since I cited him word-for-word (NIV). And he was addressing a guy because of his teachings.
We’ve properly addressed your arguments repeatedly over the years, and you continue to pretend we haven’t. So, no, I didn’t address your argument this time, rather I exposed you for who you are and why you teach what you do.
No, it is NOT arrogant to KNOW what God thinks about queers marrying (there is nothing “gay” about them). It is not an opinion. You keep claiming it is MY interpretation, ignoring the thousands of years of Christians having the same interpretation. You consistently claim it was Bible study which led you to your conclusions and we have consistently pointed out how that is impossible.
Salvation is by grace through faith in the Jesus of the Bible. That is why the Mormons are not saved, because their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. That is why the JWs are not saved because their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. These are what Paul called “another Jesus.” It is the same with you. Your Jesus is made in your image; your Jesus thinks homosexual behavior is okay. Your Jesus denigrates the Bible.
You have proven by your teachings that the Jesus and God you worship are not found in the Bible. You have proven by your teachings that you hold a very low view of Scripture, relegating anything which doesn’t agree with you to myth, etc.
You are NOT a Christian by any sense of the word. You are a rank heretic who lies about Jesus and God, just like your father the Devil.
You really need to repent and turn to the real Christ for salvation before your chance to do so is gone.
Dan,
No, I don’t support their firing him. I’m consistent.
Thanks for the answer. So, Glenn, Craig and I are consistent in one direction. You’re consistent in the other. Well, at least there’s that to be said about all our characters.
God bless,
~Dan
A question, though: Is there any level of disagreement with one’s employer that makes firing justified, to you?
The church who hires a pastor presuming he’s opposed to gay marriage who then proceeds to come out in support of gay marriage. Would it be wrong to fire him?
Would you call that religious discrimination if they fired that pastor for his religious beliefs that contradict theirs?
Or suppose the NAACP hired a white person to be their Director and it turned out that person came out with a statement that he thought black folk were an inferior race? Fire or not?
I have to think that, at least at some level, you think an employee holds views so contrary to their employer’s that the employer is justified in firing them. Am I right?
If so, where do you draw the line?
Interesting position, I hope you clarify.
Thanks,
Dan
Come on Dan, you support A&E for firing the guy because his beliefs didn’t jibe with theirs – do you then support the Photographers and bakers who refuse to support queer “weddings” because of their beliefs?
Come on, don’t be a coward, ‘fess up.
As I have been following this discussion, a few points are clear:
—A&E, GLAAD and people like Dan Trabue are inconsistent in their position regarding discrimination. (Dan believes he is consistent because he cites a religious organization, but this is whitewash, as future pressures by activists and enablers will surely prove.) IF they are being honest, they could not possibly concur with recent decisions regarding business owners who choose not to do business that makes them complicit in blatantly immoral and disordered behaviors. It has been shown time and again the proponents of truth regarding homosexuality and homosexual behavior have been shown the door, even when comments made are outside the workplace and not easily connected to the workplace doing the termination. At the same time, businesses are ordered by law to regard homosexuals as a protected class despite the position a business may have regarding the immorality and disorder of homosexual behavior.
To put it more succinctly (and don’t you wish I did so at the start?), Dan and the rest of us do indeed agree that A&E are within their rights. We just do not agree that this sentiment is consistently applied to both sides of the issue, especially since it hasn’t been so far.
—This issue has provoked an outcry that frankly surprises me. As Yahoo’s policy for news reporting on their daily homepage is “Something gay every day”, the comments section following reports of the Robertson ordeal weigh very heavily in his favor. I’ve seen several comments from homosexuals who disagree with A&E’s treatment of Robertson, which demonstrates that not all homosexuals are as goofy as Dan is. While I agree that A&E can do what it likes, I believe their actions are cowardly and fascistic, just as I would disagree with a racist refusing to serve other races while supporting their right to refuse that service.
—Dan is adamant in his belief that his “opinion” can in any way be supported Biblically as regards homosexual behavior. He is adamant in his belief that OT prohibitions cannot necessarily be understood to be for all time and for all people. He is, as Bubba says so well, very bad at playing dumb with regards to clearly revealed teachings of Scripture. While he continues perpetrating the nonsensical opinion that Lev 18:22 refers to some pagan ritual, he thus far has failed to support this “hunch” (not at all a hunch, but a willfully created fantasy) with anything but personally injected meaning that honest people cannot infer. He continues with the false ignorance that it is impossible to hold onto the behavioral prohibitions of that chapter and verse, while understanding the limited application of the punishments of Lev 20. Then he dares suggest it is us who deals in “extra-Bibical” eisegesis.
—-Dan seems to be (I use “seems to be” with rolling eyes) suggesting that terrorists, animal abusers or any other of the most horrible and heinous persons in his mind, are incapable of living a Godly life outside the sin by which he names them. In other words, one can engage in what God has clearly labeled an abomination, but that behavior is justified by the manner in which they live the rest of their lives. Not so for the terrorist, animal abuser or any of the other people Dan considers heinous for their behaviors. For such people, they cannot be “mistaken”, yet still saved apparently. They are just horrible people, regardless of whatever wonderful things they might do in their lives. The double standard here is obvious and self-serving.
—Finally, what is most clear and has been for some time, Dan, like those stalwarts of truth and reason at GLAAD, look to comments from anyone, such as Robertson, for means by which they can inject hatred and bigotry to further their deceits in support of abomination. The problem lies not in people like Dan who infer the worst of someone whose words defy and/or deny the fantasy pro-homosexualists defend, but in the Robertsons of the words who proclaim God’s clearly revealed Will for us on earth.
Dan:
You keep asserting that the Baptist Home for Children is on-topic — AT LEAST as germane is Robertson’s actual comment, where he dared to mention homosexuality and bestiality in the same sentence. In this thread, you’ve repeatedly asserted that such a statement is so “evil” that — laws against religious discrimination be damned — A&E has the legal right to punish him for a statement that is quite clearly rooted in his religious beliefs. You’ve also preened about just how consistent your thinking is, and so I urge to justify your opposition to bestiality USING REASONS THAT AREN’T UNDERCUT BY YOUR RATIONALE FOR SUPPORTING HOMOSEXUALITY.
Consensus doesn’t cut it, because there was a consensus against homosexuality for literal centuries, and Peter Singer’s arguments demonstrate that there ISN’T a mainstream consensus against bestiality now. Appeals to what’s natural don’t cut it either, for obvious reasons — and since the sex drive is just as natural as the appetite for food, it’s not remotely clear why it’s wrong for man to be romantic with animals, but perfectly fine for man to slaughter them on an industrial scale.
Imagine the best-case scenario for a zoophile and his beloved: the guy claims to be a Christian, his is a long-term and even monogamous relationship with a large enough mammal that physical harm is quite impossible, and he takes pains to meet every possible need that his “wife” has.
How in the world could you possibly explain to him your “hunch” that their relationship is a sin?
I put it to you that you couldn’t, and your revulsion at zoophilia and your willingness to denigrate it as the worst of sins — and to denigrate zoophiles, AN ENTIRE GROUP, as the worst of sinners — is rooted in nothing more than prejudice.
Prove me wrong.
—
About Scripture, you just wrote that the Bible “never makes the claim to be a rule book.”
But now you write:
“Because the Bible is not a rule book, it is a book of wisdom and truth. It is not a history book, it is a book of wisdom and truth. It is not a science book, it is a book of wisdom and truth.
Where SPECIFICALLY does the Bible teach this? Where does the Bible claim to be “a book of wisdom and truth” but not history or ethics?
Or will you never hold yourself to the same standards you impose on others?
Myself, I don’t distinguish between the Bible’s historical claims, ethical commands, doctrinal revelation, or other claims that can be vaguely categorized as wisdom and truth. I believe that everything the Bible affirms is true: EVERYTHING.
It’s quite obvious that the Bible makes historical claims that are meant to be trusted as historically accurate. Moses is recorded as having written things down, and Christ and the Apostles treat the events he recorded as accurate, down to verb tenses and chronological sequencing. Luke began his Gospel by asserting the careful research of an historical investigation, and John began his first letter by claiming to have a direct and intimate eyewitness testimony. Matthew repeatedly asserted that events took place in order to fulfill prior prophecies, and Paul was emphatic that our faith is in vain if the Resurrection didn’t take place.
It’s also obvious that the Bible makes ethical claims that are meant to be taken as universally binding — and when you’re not denigrating ethical commands as mere “rules,” you seem to understand this, as when you blather about “Jesus’ Way” or take for granted the authority of commands to love your neighbor, care for the poor, and avoid bearing false witness.
Certainly, not everything the Bible records, it affirms.
– David’s behavior re: Bathsheba is recorded as having taken place, but it certainly wasn’t affirmed as ethically normative. On the contrary, through Samuel’s condemnation and David’s own repentance, it’s clear that God sat in judgment against his numerous sins.
– Job’s friends made many speeches, but the Bible doesn’t affirm that they were right, that Job’s suffering was the consequence of his sinfulness. On the contrary, in Job 42:7, God condemns them by saying they “have not spoken of me what is right.”
– To use possibly the simplest example, Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” It should go without saying that the Bible doesn’t affirm atheism: it condemns the atheist for his foolishness, or rather it condemns the fool for his atheism.
But I believe what the Bible does affirm IS true and trustworthy: Christ and the Apostle’s example and explicit teachings lead to no other conclusion.
—
About homosexuality specifically and the OT’s prescription of capital punishment, you ask, “What is it teaching, that we should kill any and all men lying with men in any and all contexts and times?”
The command was given to the theocracy of ancient Israel, and there’s no indication that it was still in-force for the New Testament church. On the contrary, Christ and the Apostles taught non-retaliation, with mere excommunication for unrepentant church members to be the worst exception to that rule.
The principle was that vengeance belonged to God: compare how Elijah treated the priests of Baal to how Peter let the Holy Spirit take care of Ananias and Sapphira, and there can be no real doubt that the church’s m.o. differed greatly from ancient Israel’s. It’s almost as if the church’s Founder claimed that His kingdom wasn’t of this world.
But, Dan, let’s not pretend that we agree that the command was limited to some particular contexts and times: you think that this is one of those “less than perfect” revelations that was a literal atrocity in every context and at all times.
In Romans 1:32, after listing a wide variety of sins, Paul does affirm “God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die,” but what does that matter? it doesn’t mean that the sentence is just even if the church isn’t authorized to carry it out: it just means that Paul is as barbaric as the OT writers. You’ve never submitted to the apostolic teaching on principle, and I don’t see why you’d start now.
—
But, as I’ve mentioned time and time again, my opposition to homosexuality isn’t ultimately rooted in Old Testament law.
From the beginning, God created man male and female so that a man would leave his family to become one flesh with his wife.
If that’s not “wisdom and truth,” what is it, Dan?
That principle is rooted in Genesis 2, but it was affirmed by Jesus Christ Himself, Whom you claim to follow as your Lord. It’s not the single most important principle taught in the Bible, but no faithful disciple could possibly treat it as disposable.
It’s not a principle you can get around, and by limiting God’s will for human sexuality to lifelong heterosexual monogamy, it precludes a wide array of deviations — including homosexual relationships.
That truth you’ve never been able to dispute. For that matter, it’s a truth you’ve very rarely even acknowledged.
One last thing, Dan:
Your stated revulsion at bestiality might not be rooted in prejudice: it could just be hypocrisy.
There are substantial differences between ethnicity and behavior, but that doesn’t stop you from trying to coopt the civil rights movement by suggesting that opposition to sodomy is morally equivalent to Jim Crow. And, your arguments for homosexuality DO INDEED erode the arguments for bestiality, but that doesn’t stop you from screaming bloody murder when people dare to mention both in the same sentence.
For you, the comparison to blacks is useful and therefore entirely justifiable, but the comparison to zoophiliacs is unhelpful and therefore EVIL, EVIL, EVIL.
Again, I invite you to prove me wrong.
You support unnatural relations between two members of the same sex, AND you support the wholesale slaughter of animals, but you vigorously oppose unnatural relations across species — why?
Why, Dan, is it so much worse to romance an animal than it is to roast him?
Why?
What is your argument against bestiality that doesn’t make a mockery of your support for homosexuality OR your acceptance of an omnivorous society?
You ain’t got one, and we all know it.
Bubba…
Where SPECIFICALLY does the Bible teach this? Where does the Bible claim to be “a book of wisdom and truth” but not history or ethics?
Or will you never hold yourself to the same standards you impose on others?
It doesn’t. That’s just my opinion (and many others, of course).
Do you think it’s not a book of wisdom and truth?
Do you recognize that it’s just your opinion that it’s a rule book? Or do you agree with me that it’s not a rule book and trying to treat it like one undermines the Bible’s teaching, rather than supports it?
~Dan
Bubba…
I believe that everything the Bible affirms is true: EVERYTHING.
Yes, you affirm that the Bible wants us to think that “Men laying with men is wrong” is true (and not only that, but by “men laying with men” you think that is speaking of all gay behavior in all times and circumstances – that is, not only do you think what the Bible says in Leviticus is true, you also think your extrapolations beyond that is true) and that the second half of that (“…if they do, kill them both…”) WAS a true command back then for those people, but it’s not today. You affirm that God commands God’s people sometimes to kill the enemy, right down to the children and babies. You affirm that it was wrong for Israel to cut their hair on the side of their head (but you don’t affirm that it is a true/valid teaching for US). You affirm a lot, except for what you say doesn’t apply.
I affirm that those words are there, too, Bubba. And I affirm that they don’t all apply to us.
How’s that different from what you do?
And apologies, John, Terrance, for this off topic meandering… I’m just answering some off topic questions being tossed my way.
~Dan
“Meandering.” That’s hilarious.
It’s meandering to ask about bestiality, even though the blog entry quotes Robertson’s comments on the subject, and you didn’t think it was off-topic to bleat about how he was “evil” for mentioning the sin in the same sentence as homosexuality.
And it’s meandering to discuss the authority of Scripture even though Robertson paraphrased it and — if we were to be brutally honest about it — the only reason he’s in hot water is because he actually treats Scripture as the written word of God.
But I suppose you think it’s not meandering to bring up a Baptist ministry from out of absolutely nowhere.
You’re so transparent, Dan, lying about what’s going on because you really cannot cope with reality.
Focusing on an entirely relevant subject when you don’t like where it’s headed? That’s a digression.
Accurately describing your behavior when it casts a bad light on your character? That’s an ad hominem.
You simply cannot argue anything on the merits.
—
If you think your beliefs regarding the Bible are no more rooted in Scripture than ours, why bother asserting that our positions — or your distorted version of our positions — aren’t taught in the Bible?
What’s the point in invoking a standard of evidence against somebody else’s position when your position can’t meet that standard either? Are you hoping nobody notices the hypocrisy, or are you incapable of being consistent from one thought to the next?
“Do you think it’s not a book of wisdom and truth?”
That’s not what you said: you said that the Bible is a book of “wisdom and truth” but NOT history or ethics. Don’t act as if I wasn’t responding to the negative claim, and don’t ask me questions about positions you don’t hold.
And, on that subject…
“I affirm that those words are there, too, Bubba. And I affirm that they don’t all apply to us.”
…you ought to be honest. It’s not that you think those passages “don’t all apply to us” BUT DID APPLY TO OLD-TESTAMENT JEWS. No, you think those passages were less-than-perfect revelation or Jewish “revenge fantasies” rather than divine instruction: you denigrate them as atrocities rather than affirm that they were divine commands with a limited scope.
Do you believe that God literally and historically commanded ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation? Of course you don’t, you’ve made that clear enough over the years, when you’ve had ample time to correct the record.
—
“You affirm a lot, except for what you say doesn’t apply.”
It’s not that I don’t affirm the divine authorship of certain passages, it’s just that I believe that the commands’ scope wasn’t universal.
It’s patently dishonest to insinuate that this is some self-serving personal theory, when Jeremiah promised a new covenant, when Jesus Himself claimed to have inaugurated that new covenant, and when an entire book of the Bible is premised on this transition.
The Letter to the Hebrews: have you really not read it? One of its central premises is that aspects of the Old Testament were mere “shadows” of what Jesus was to accomplish on the cross.
And it’s almost certainly hypocritical of you to sneer at this approach when presumably do the same thing yourself.
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” – Do you really deny the obvious, that this command from Jesus Himself is truly universal in scope, seeing as He gave it as one of the two great commandments?
“Go into the next town where you’ll find a donkey and a colt; untie them, bring them here, and if anybody raises any questions, tell them the Lord needs them.” – Do you really deny the obvious, that this command from Jesus Himself was limited to the two disciples who were given that direct order on His approach to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday?
Show some intelligence, Dan, or at least stop insulting ours. It’s not effective, it’s never been effective, and its only result is to prompt us to draw the worst sort of conclusions about you.
“…and its only result is to prompt us to draw the worst sort of conclusions about you.”
The above truly sums up the ongoing interchange between Dan and many of us. I have no doubt that most opponents of Dan would think better of him if he didn’t behave in the way he does, regardless of whether or not his positions changed. We totally understand a disagreement exists, but can never get a good argument against our positions. I’m not afraid of truth and facts and logic forcing me to alter my opinions and positions. Dan’s never provided any. He doesn’t buy our explanations. They don’t sound compelling to him. Fine. Why not? What’s wrong with them? Where is the flaw? I’ve waited years of some semblance of explanation. Still waiting.
The same is true when we argue against his positions. We give plenty of fact and logic, only to hear the same nonsense. “Hunches”.
Again he claims we are injecting meaning into Lev 18:22. What meaning could we inject? It says, “thou shalt not…” What meaning do we need to inject into that which is so clear, so plain, so simple? How can it not mean “don’t do it”, and nothing more? Dan hopes it means something other than “EVER!”, that there is some way to pretend it means there is some context in which it is OK. But again, can’t explain how that is. He tries, with appeals to some notion that it refers to pagan religious rituals, but can’t, as Bubba has shown, explain how that isn’t true for all the other sexual prohibitions that are found on either side of verse 22. Instead, he refers to Lev 20:13, insisting that we must also apply the penalty that was in force for the ancient Hebrews. A dodge. A dance. A distraction from the point. Explain how we misunderstand the prohibition and where you see a loophole that “loving, monogamous” and otherwise “faithful Christians” can squeeze through. Do so without resorting to “my opinion” or “just your hunch” when we again expose the gaping holes of your “reasoning”.
Holding one’s breath is not advised.
Dan,
In your learned opinion, is hypocrisy a sin?
Oh, and please stop acting as if I agree with you on anything more than one minor point.
Craig, did you ever get the invite I sent you? You didnt respond.
John,
I did, I’ve just been a little busy and need to finish it.
My dearest brothers in this human family: My beloved brothers in Christ:
I have spent years and written thousands of words explaining my positions I’ve written entire books’ worth of words trying to explain to you how a fellow conservative Christian, raised in a very traditional background with zero exposure to “liberal” theology; a brother, saved by God’s grace seeking to walk in the steps of Jesus, our dear Lord… how someone like me, like you, could read the Bible, take it extremely seriously, and come to the conclusions that I have reached.
I apologize from my deepest bones if I have been unable to explain my positions in a way that makes sense to you, that helps you at least see how I could even possibly reached these positions. Certainly, I have not made my case in such a way that I have made sense to you, the evidence on that is quite clear.
Nonetheless, it is also undeniably not from a lack of trying. I have stated and re-stated and clarified and re-clarified my positions and points over and over again, over years.
But in the end, the fact is, I have not made my case in a compelling way such that you get my points or think they are valid. Similarly, in the end, you have not made your case in a manner that I find compelling. I understand what you are saying, I just don’t think your positions (on these few topics we have discussed endlessly) stand the test of biblical wisdom or basic morality or sound reasoning. And of course, you all would say the same for me.
I don’t know how to re-state my case any better and I doubt that you can make your case in any better way, as I fully understand it, I just find it wanting.
And so, unless there’s some reason to re-hash what has been rehashed before, I pray that God’s peace and wisdom and grace may so overflow in our lives this Christmas season that we have no choice but to embrace it, the best of our poor flawed ability.
I bless you and praise you for your patience with me, I thank you for the many attempts that I’m sure in your hearts have been well-intentioned to “show me the light.” I love each of you in the love of Christ.
Peace,
Dan Trabue
Blah, blah, blah.
So many of these millions of words could have been made unnecessary by an honest defense regarding your position versus the many questions your position have provoked. Some of these questions have been posed in this very thread. You do not provide any answer from Scripture, for example, in your arguments against Bubba’s questions regarding bestiality. His arguments flow from your own defense of homosexual behavior. They are logical extrapolations based on your position. No one is expressing a personal desire to defend bestiality. No one has really ever expressed a personal revulsion for homosexuality (and certainly no one argues from such a position). We argue from Scripture. You claim to do so as well but cannot, or will not, explain how Scripture supports your position without quickly resorting to “I disagree”, “that’s your hunch”, “I don’t find it compelling” and other cowardly means of avoidance. You claim that you can admit to being wrong, but when all evidence has been presented to thoroughly show that you are, you don’t step up. You disagree? Fine. Explain what is wrong with the argument with which you disagree. You don’t find it compelling? Fine. Explain what’s wrong with argument that fails to compel you to change your mind.
Here’s the thing: Assuming you’re being truthful, I’ve done the same thing you claim to have done. Compelled by a pastor’s claim that the pro-homosexualists have a strong argument to support their position, I studied Scripture along side their arguments, as well as the arguments of scholars for and against. But merely studying Scripture was enough. It’s too crystal clear, even before examining the works of scholars who have dissected the ancient languages. It just isn’t there. You know this. The question is why you persist in clinging to the lie.
Despite the many millions of words that have been exchanged over this issue, I continue to stand ready to start all over again, regardless of how futile it might seem to anyone else.
Dan,
I guess that’s a long winded and apparently faux humble way of saying that you’re going to bail instead of answering questions.
Thanks.
Craig,
If I answer all these many off topic questions again, if I go through my explanations again, if I clarify where you all have misunderstood me again, what would be the gain?
And since “Dan” is not the topic of this post, I am loathe to drag it on only to have you all not understand my positions again and continue to answer a long litany of questions I’ve mostly addressed before. Besides, it’s Christmas time and I’m not huge on pointless yammering off topic. On my actual point I made here, we are mostly in agreement on the principle I put forth.
And so, I’m wishing you a grace-full Christmas full of peace and kindness, dear brother Craig.
~Dan
Beyond that Craig, I’ve apologized for not being able to state my case in a better way that makes my side compelling to you all. Obviously I haven’t. How will answering more questions change anything?
Marshall…
It’s too crystal clear, even before examining the works of scholars who have dissected the ancient languages. It just isn’t there. You know this. The question is why you persist in clinging to the lie.
As noted multiple times, NO, I do not “know this…” I think my position is the most biblical, moral and rational position to take on that topic. I hold my position BECAUSE I think it is biblical, moral and rational. That is the reason. I’ve answered that.
You saying, “NO, you are mistaken, Dan, that isn’t the reason you hold that position…” does not change the facts of the matter. Saying it 1000 times won’t change the facts. Facts are facts, dear friend.
I think perhaps you all cling so tightly to this delusion because it disturbs you that a conservative can honestly change his position simply because of prayer and Bible study and contemplative consideration to all the facts as they understand them. It disturbs you so much, it seems, that you have no room in your brain for even considering the possibility.
But the facts are what they are. I HAVE laid out my case honestly and with a good deal of depth and effort. You are free to disagree with my conclusion, but you are not free to say it is not actually my honest conclusion. The facts are simply factual in the real world.
Again, have a blessed Christmas,
~Dan
Jeremiah 8:11-12.
Dan,
Thanks for you non answering of questions, I’m sure it will make for a great Christmas.
And this is how Dan seeks to declare peace:
“I think perhaps you all cling so tightly to this delusion because it disturbs you that a conservative can honestly change his position simply because of prayer and Bible study and contemplative consideration to all the facts as they understand them. It disturbs you so much, it seems, that you have no room in your brain for even considering the possibility.”
Yes, it’s not the inadequacy of his arguments or his ability to communicate them, it’s our issues.
Peace and goodwill, my dear brothers.
[barf]
Bubba, I can sincerely wish for you to have a blessed and peaceful holiday. I can do this as your beloved brother in Christ. AND I can do this even while I disagree (seriously) with some of your opinions. Seriously.
Are you not able to wish well to those with whom you disagree seriously?
Why the combativeness, fellas? “Peace and goodwill… barf…”? Is that the attitude of people of good faith?
I’ll tell you what, though, some time in the next few days I will write a post on my blog that deals with the nature of sin and disagreement over sin and what the Bible does and does not say and what is rational or not rational. Then, we can discuss some of these matters on topic.
Merry Christmas, gentlemen. May your time with family and church and friends be a holy and loving time of contemplation and joy, smiles and cherished memories. May God bless you richly in all that you do for God.
Seriously.
~Dan
“…and what is rational or not rational.”
This I can predict with stunning accuracy. Whatever is Dan’s opinion is rational, whatever is anyone else’s position is not rational.
Craig. Correction: Dans view is rational and everyone else’s is just a hunch.
OK John, you win. I stand corrected.
Dan, while I do literally pray for your good as well, I find this “peace, dear brother” stuff to be nauseating for a couple reasons.
First, calling us your brothers is presumptuous, probably insincere, and outright passive-aggressive considering our disagreements.
You not only believe that we’re mistaken, you believe we hold evil views — literally atrocious and bigoted views for accepting the Old Testament as historical; for affirming the Bible’s teachings regarding male leadership in the household, the prohibition of homosexual relationships, and the use of corporal punishment; and, most crucially, for affirming the Bible’s clear teaching of the substitutionary atonement.
At the same time, you deny the causal connection between Christ’s death and our salvation; you deny the necessity of the bodily resurrection; you deny that the virgin birth is an unambiguous teaching of Scripture; you deny that the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ and not just a long-standing church tradition; and you even cannot bring yourself to affirm that mere theism — BELIEF IN GOD — is essential to church membership.
Beyond these deviations from the Bible’s clear teachings, you are consistently hypocritical and intellectually dishonest, and you seem incapable of shame about any of your behavior except for your past as a political and theological conservative.
You know for a fact that quite a few of us do not consider you a brother in Christ — and we have good reasons for not doing so — so perhaps the polite thing to do is not to write such smarmy crap as you head for the exit, and that brings me to the other reason I so loathe this routine of yours.
It’s blindingly obvious that you’ve decided to cut-and-run to avoid dealing with good, hard questions that betray just how vacuous your arguments are.
You cannot explain why eating meat is morally permissible if zoophilia is somehow uniquely evil, so you don’t even try.
You cannot cope with the Bible’s “truth and wisdom” that, from the beginning, God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife, and so you don’t even try.
You’re completely transparent.
And the next time you bring up the subject of homosexuality, we should remind you of these questions, because you’re not suddenly a different Dan Trabue just because you’re commenting in a different thread.
—
Ace of Spades has another great observation, one that really nails what’s wrong with the arguments of the politically correct bullies on the left.
Not knowing the contract between A&E and Robertson, Ace concedes for the sake of argument that A&E had the legal right to punish the man.
“So, okay, where are we now? A&E has the right to fire or suspend Robertson. So what? The argument is not about what people can do, it’s about what they should do.
“98% of political (or cultural) arguments are not about what people may legally do, but what they should do.
“A person who insists that the question is ‘Does A&E have the simple legal right to undertake this action?’ is either deceptive or stupid. He either deliberately conflates what may be done with what should be done, in order to dishonestly confuse an audience, or he confuses these two things because he is confused himself.”
He notes that leftists used to be champions of dissent, but that was only when it was dissent against the right. Now that they have the power to suppress to dissenting speech, they have no qualms about using and abusing that power.
Bubba…
calling us your brothers is presumptuous, probably insincere, and outright passive-aggressive considering our disagreements.
I can assure you it is quite sincere. And YES, we disagree, but what of it? Having read the Bible, I thoroughly expect brothers and sisters to disagree – even strongly! Of course we will disagree, that is simply part of our fallen human nature. Thank God for Grace!
Bubba…
You not only believe that we’re mistaken, you believe we hold evil views — literally atrocious and bigoted views for accepting the Old Testament as historical…
Yes, those are your positions, positions I consider quite wrong. Positions my dear parents hold as well as many of my friends and family. Positions I formerly held.
But I can hate you for being (what I consider) mistaken no more than I could hate my parents or my own former self for being (what I consider) mistaken. Gentlemen, we ALL are fallen, foibled, flakey and sometimes foolish humanity. Of course! we will be mistaken, we will disagree about who is mistaken and who isn’t… even on serious topics.
But I assure you dear brother that I no more hold it against you for being (what I consider) mistaken than I do myself for being (what I’m sure as sometimes) mistaken. Mistakes happen. Sincere, strongly held disagreements happen. But thank God! we are not saved by our perfect knowledge but by grace! Thank God we have an example of a church and a God that loves us, embraces us and forgives us NOT when we “get it right” but even when we are mistaken.
Could it be that part of this distaste you all have for me is that you honestly think that I’m NOT being honest when I tell you, Bubba, that I love you as my dear brother in Christ? That you think I’m just saying stuff for effect? I don’t know, you tell me.
All I can tell you is that I don’t need for you to be perfectly correct and perfectly in agreement with me before I love you. For if neither height nor depth nor disagreements nor misunderstandings nor hurt feelings nor powers above nor powers below can separate us from the Love of God, I feel I owe it to myself and to you to strive to love you, in spite of our disagreements. Sincerely.
As to answering your off topic questions, I’ll be glad to address them (as I have so many of your questions) on a blog post where it is on topic. Keep your eyes peeled and your heart open.
Glad tidings to you, good sir.
~Dan
Look out Bubba, Trabue is taking the moral high ground!
Could it be that part of this distaste you all have for me is that you honestly think that I’m NOT being honest when I tell you, Bubba, that I love you as my dear brother in Christ? That you think I’m just saying stuff for effect? I don’t know, you tell me.
My distaste for you is the same I have for every other false teaching, lying, heretic who supports all that is demonic – and in the name of Christ, adding blasphemy to the charges.
And yet, Dear Glenn, I love you as my brother in Christ. I am sorry that it offends you so, but facts are facts. Like it or not, I am your brother in Christ. And no amount of demonization (literally, in your case) of me will change that.
Have yourself a blessed Christmas, Glenn.
~Dan
Trabue,
There you go again. YOU ARE A FOOLISH JACKASS. You have been asked dozens of time to not call me your brother. You are NOT a Christian brother any more than is a Mormon or a JW. You are indeed demonic.
Bubba,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The issue is not what CAN A&E do, but what SHOULD they do. If they are truly taking a principled stand, shouldn’t they just pull the show? If they are making the “right” business decision shouldn’t they go with which side has the most support?
The problem is that A&E is trying to pander to the left without completely alienating the show’s fans, thereby giving up any pretense of making a stand on principle. The bottom line is they don’t want to lose the show that is the highest rated show on cable TV (not just A&E, but all of cable).
As far as the Robertson’s, what should they do?
1. Rethink their whole commitment to the idea of the show.
2. Rethink their attachment to A&E.
3. Make sure that any future contracts prevent this.
Anyone who’s read more of Phil’s comments, including his follow up/clarification, than the small section that has caused the uproar has to see the dichotomy between what he actually said as opposed to the media/liberal narrative.
Relax Glenn and Bubba. Dan’s gonna do what Dan’s gonna do as he apparently is given over by God to a depraved mind. Because although he knows God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, he approves of those who do those things.
I just saw a piece reporting on Bill O’Reilly’s view of this issue. He sounds like a lefty when he says Robertson is condemning homosexuals. The piece referred to his book about the death of Christ and apparently old Bill wrote that book without doing any true study of Scripture. So much of what Phil has said is paraphrasing of Scripture, and not too loosely, either. What’s more, of course, is that Phil has stated quite clearly that he does not take it upon himself to judge in the manner that is reserved for God alone. Billy O speaks of Luke 6:37 and refers to it as most lefties and atheists like to do.
So many, even some conservatives (both real and alleged), have a hard time with Scripture that describes the consequences of immoral behavior when presented by someone in the manner Phil Robertson did. They say he condemned homosexuals by doing so. It is untrue and for some, an outright lie. To relate the teachings of Scripture is to warn sinners of those consequences, a plea to reconsider their practices in light of those teachings and repent for His sake.
But O’Reilly is clearly a proponent of the homosexual agenda. So many on FoxNews are, which is their one flaw.
O’Reily is a dink.
And Merry Christmas, Marshall.
Dan, I’m tired of your stating obvious platitudes to avoid dealing with substantive issues.
Of course, Christians can disagree, but not all disagreements are possible between two faithful and maturing Christians, otherwise Paul wouldn’t have pronounced a solemn curse on those who preached a different gospel, and John wouldn’t have written that the denial of the Incarnation is from a spirit of antichrist.
Of course, God blesses marriage, but — to put it mildly — the Bible doesn’t seem to endorse an androgynous conception of the institution.
And, it’s probably true that A&E had the legal right to censure Robertson, but as Ace pointed out in the post I cited most recently, the real question isn’t what the network CAN do, but what it SHOULD do in the context of a truly free society.
Only a fool would confuse these issues, and only a liar would pretend to confuse them. Since I’ve never doubted your intelligence to the degree that this sort of confusion seems a plausible result of a good-faith effort to discover and defend the truth, I must conclude that you really know better.
In the same way, I’m sure you know that my responses were no more “off-topic” than your original comments.
You called Robertson’s comments evil for putting homosexuality in the same sentence as bestiality, and it’s certainly appropriate to reply by pointing out that your arguments for the former undermine any credible arguments against the latter.
You claim that the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is part of its historical claims and ethical commands that Christians can ignore since (you say) the only things the Bible relays with any authority are things concerning truths and wisdom; well, it’s certainly appropriate to point out that your position is completely unmoored from Scripture and to insist that you deal with the “truth and wisdom” that, from the beginning, God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
It’s absurd to dismiss questions as irrelevant when it’s obvious that your real issue is that they’re inconvenient.
You’re transparent as can be.
—
Marshall, you’re absolutely right that Dan will do what he does.
My Sunday School teacher reminds us the lost will think, say, and do things that reflect their being lost.
So too do false Christians.
—
Hope everyone’s having a great Christmas.
I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas.
Terrance. Define “dink”. (never mind—I’m guessing it’s appropriate) :)