The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:42 pm

callmeslick wrote:The New Testament(and especially the words of Jesus, himself) has FAR more to say about coveting money, than it does about sexual conduct. Just an observation.

Yup....you're going to hell...boy...

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:10 pm

TC... here's what I'd ask of you:

Take a step back from your views. Read the whole of what you can find in the way of quotes from the article. Then, come back here and read what you've posted and tell me whose words are more hateful. My earlier point about conformism doesn't mean I condone hateful non-conformity... it means that my problem is with hate, not with disagreements.

Slick:

It also seems that Phil isn't exactly trying to set himself up as the standard of perfection. What I read from him seems to be pretty straight theologically.... the "well you do bad things too" card shouldn't work on Christians because that's one of the foundations of our beliefs... that we're all hopeless sinners in need of God's salvation. That's where all of the backlash comes in... as humans we all want to tell ourselves that we're okay, and it makes us angry when someone tries to come in and tell us that we're wrong.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:17 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:
Yes, you're right Slick. Since Phil is under contract, he violated the terms of his contract.
how the HELL do you know what the terms if the cotract are? Just a little presumptuous on your part dont you think.
I'd say a little naive(or willing blindness) on yours, CUDA, if you don't think there was a public conduct clause. Don't you have one, with your employer? You know, a little paragraph to the effect of(and I'm reading this off an old copy of my contract):" In the event it is deemed by_____ Incorporated, that the employee, in his public conduct or communications, has in any way caused harm or undue controversy to ______Incorporated, immediate termination of employment can occur, without warning beforehand. Employee has the right to appeal before the appropriate government employment regulators, in such circumstance."

I'm neither. You and TC both made a factual statement that he is in violation of that contract. Neither of you know that. He might be. but for you to state is as fact when you don't know is wrong. And you know it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:43 am

CUDA, put another way, if Phil WASN'T in violation of contract, A and E would never have thought about suspending him, because the lawsuits would have been immense. So, yes, you are correct in that I don't have Phil's contract in front of me, but such contracts are routine in EVERY line of work.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:14 am

callmeslick wrote:CUDA, put another way, if Phil WASN'T in violation of contract, A and E would never have thought about suspending him, because the lawsuits would have been immense. So, yes, you are correct in that I don't have Phil's contract in front of me, but such contracts are routine in EVERY line of work.

I disagree.
A&E is owned primarily by Disney, and both Disney and A&E are pro LGBT and GLAAD. It was a PR thing for them with that community. And one that may come back to bite them in the ass hard. And cost them hundreds of millions.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:32 am

Brandon Ambrosino wrote:I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation too.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop-culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizable audience — most of whom, by the way, probably share his views — and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.

G.K. Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right — and he usually is — then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:33 am

CUDA wrote:.
A&E is owned primarily by Disney, and both Disney and A&E are pro LGBT and GLAAD.

and why is this(and why has this been so for over a decade)? It's pure business, my friend. They know exactly where their bread is buttered, and have factored the economic loss of ticking off rabid anti-gay groups against the commercial pluses of being gay-friendly in a nation/world that overwhelmingly accepts gay people as fellow citizens.

It was a PR thing for them with that community. And one that may come back to bite them in the ass hard. And cost them hundreds of millions.

people made the same assumption when the Disney Parks became very gay-welcoming. The same people made the same assumption when Disney/ABC/etc produced more gay-friendly programming. And, on and on. I doubt this will hurt them, net, at all.

Sort of a funny thing, this whole brouhaha, coming at the same time that a Federal Judge strikes down the Utah ban on Gay Marriage as unconstitutional. Because that, my friend, is going to be the END of this nation forbidding gay marriage anywhere.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 9:13 am

the best way I have been able to sum up my take on this whole mess.....shamelessly cut-and-pasted from my original post elsewhere:

Look, the way I see it is this: Nothing that Phil has said, regarding gays, blacks, etc, shocks me. Were I sitting in a duck blind, or fishing with him, I would expect to maybe hear such comments, just like I hear them in Virginia and here at times from Southern outdoorsmen especially. Now, in that setting, unless the comments are over the top, I just sort of ignore them, and move on to the next cast, or change the topic to who carves the best decoys on the Shore. I have taken issue with really stupid stuff, and, frankly have always been able to have civil exchanges over it, this despite the fact that all parties involved are usually consuming adult beverages. The difference here, and I tried to lay this out at the outset, is that the Robertsons sort of sold their collective souls to Disney Corporation(A and E parent) for MONEY and FAME. As such, they set themselves up for this sort of excess scrutiny from millions of people. Now, in my view of Christianity, chasing the almighty buck is FAR, FAR more of a no-no than ANY sexual inclination or activity(save maybe adultery). Jesus was real specific on that matter, and rather judgemental about it. In a way, it seems to me that what is happening around Phil is a sort of Christian version of Karma coming back to bite his ass. Perhaps, this might cause him and the whole clan to reflect on the values they claim to extoll. I damn near threw up the other night on a group interview to hear Uncle Si saying how much better it was to be rich than poor. It seems that they are unwilling to walk the walk that goes with their talk.....

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:51 am

slick, since you are citing the Christian God's authority/word to indict Phil for "selling his soul for money" then there is no such thing as karma....
So you must mean this is Gods way of punishing him.

Now, considering you are the grandson or great grandson of a banking legacy just how much sin is attached to your whole family going back at least three generations!?! Is there any 'karma' coming your way for your judgmental declarations? Any blood on all that money you like to boast about and have lived off of so high on the hog?!?
I get the impression Phil has worked harder for his money than a good old boy grandson of a banking tycoon ever has....

Another thing, you are assuming the reaction to this is going badly for the Robertsons. I think you are getting it backwards. Their product is selling off the shelves around the country out of a positive reaction, supportive show of solidarity. The calls for boycotting A&E are hitting the network harder than the feigned suspension of one of the Robertsons who can take their show to another network.

A&E which isn't exactly doing so well except for the Robertsons show is in all out hypocrisy mode because at the same time they announce Phil is on "suspension" (maybe that contract isn't what you think...ergo 'suspension' instead of fired)...at the same time as that they also announce they will broadcast a marathon of Duck Dynasty, including Phil. And the production of the newest season is almost wrapped...with Phil in the cast...and A&E says it will air as scheduled...hmmm maybe this suspension that has no actual removal of Phil is a sign the contract is not what you say it must be...or that A&E is needing Phil more than Phil is needing A&E.

So your interpretation of the contract and the potential negative impact of the interview is quite suspect in my opinion.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:34 am

callmeslick wrote:the best way I have been able to sum up my take on this whole mess.....shamelessly cut-and-pasted from my original post elsewhere:

Look, the way I see it is this: Nothing that Phil has said, regarding gays, blacks, etc, shocks me. Were I sitting in a duck blind, or fishing with him, I would expect to maybe hear such comments, just like I hear them in Virginia and here at times from Southern outdoorsmen especially. Now, in that setting, unless the comments are over the top, I just sort of ignore them, and move on to the next cast, or change the topic to who carves the best decoys on the Shore. I have taken issue with really stupid stuff, and, frankly have always been able to have civil exchanges over it, this despite the fact that all parties involved are usually consuming adult beverages. The difference here, and I tried to lay this out at the outset, is that the Robertsons sort of sold their collective souls to Disney Corporation(A and E parent) for MONEY and FAME. As such, they set themselves up for this sort of excess scrutiny from millions of people. Now, in my view of Christianity, chasing the almighty buck is FAR, FAR more of a no-no than ANY sexual inclination or activity(save maybe adultery). Jesus was real specific on that matter, and rather judgemental about it. In a way, it seems to me that what is happening around Phil is a sort of Christian version of Karma coming back to bite his ass. Perhaps, this might cause him and the whole clan to reflect on the values they claim to extoll. I damn near threw up the other night on a group interview to hear Uncle Si saying how much better it was to be rich than poor. It seems that they are unwilling to walk the walk that goes with their talk.....

please.... help me out. What does the Bible say about money?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:41 am

CUDA wrote:please.... help me out. What does the Bible say about money?

gladly. As you know, there are a least 25 references to wealth and why not to pursue it, or covet it, in the New Testament. However, to keep your daily reading assignment short, I'll point you to Timothy 6(As I recall, someplace between 6:5 and 6:10).

edit, to save you all the work:
1 Timothy 6 (7-10)--excerpted for the pertinent words, IMHO:
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:42 am

I've never even heard of this show, we don't subscribe to cable TV here. You people are throwing around bull★■◆● about Karma or divine punishment, or saying "let the viewers decide", but really, God, Karma or the viewers have no relevance to the situation at all. What is relevant is that the Disney mega-corporation has made any and all decisions about what shows up on A&E, you have no choice, the government has no influence, and Mickey Mouse murdered God over 50 years ago. The real issue at hand is freedom of speech and how it doesn't exist anymore. All around America the official policy of corporations who basically control almost everything you see and hear is "We support freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything we don't like.".

For all the railing on government you people do, at least the government doesn't censor you just because you are a bunch of assholes prone to spewing copious amounts of verbal diarrhea. If this site were some commercial entity like a TV network or something like that controlled by a board of directors and public shareholders, you can bet your life something to the tune of half of the posts in here would probably have been censored. Granted, Foil, Jeff and I can still censor stuff, but the reasoning behind why we would censor something would be because it is not productive to the discussion instead of just because "people might be offended by it" or "we disagree with it". There is plenty of stuff said in these forums that I disagree with or that other people will find offensive, but I'm still going to let it be written.

So basically whats the point? If you don't like what happened here: boycott Disney, otherwise move on.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:19 pm

Krom, I think a lot of us are interested in debating the merits of the reactions to these events. So while we may lend our voices to the support of one side or the other we can also debate the core issues among ourselves. The core issues are values we hold as individuals, free speech, the true meaning of tolerance, hypocrisy, etc. ...not just opinion on what a corporation can or should do with a PR problem.

Especially since the corporate entities in this case aren't really doing anything very solid.
A&E is broadcasting the show like never before, including episodes with Phil in them, while claiming to have come down on it...
Cracker Barrel, a sponsor of the show, announces it is dropping support. But really it isn't because they are only removing Duck Commander product that has Phil's picture on it. Meanwhile they are selling the stuff like always. Probably trading the packages with Phil on it for packages with the other members next time the truck rolls up to restock!

So they want a token attaboy from the gay community but they want to continue profiting from the Duck Commander product and Duck Dynasty show.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:25 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:please.... help me out. What does the Bible say about money?
gladly. As you know, there are a least 25 references to wealth and why not to pursue it, or covet it, in the New Testament. However, to keep your daily reading assignment short, I'll point you to Timothy 6(As I recall, someplace between 6:5 and 6:10).

edit, to save you all the work:
1 Timothy 6 (7-10)--excerpted for the pertinent words, IMHO:
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.

you do realize that the book of 1 timothy has to do with the qualifications for leadership in the church. And again it has to do with the love of money. NOT the possession of it. As I pointed out else where King David was probably one of the richest men that ever lived and was considered a man after Gods own heart.

Having money does not make one ungodly, or is it even un biblical. It is how that money is aquired and what you do with it. Try reading the book of Job, maybe you'll understand how it works. GOD gave it to him, God Took it all away, and then gave even more to him, and Job never forgit where it came from and never stopped praising him for it

CobGobbler · Post by **CobGobbler** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:53 pm

Foil edits crap he doesn't agree with...just saying.

Weren't we having this exact same discussion about Martin Bashir? Funny enough, Cuda, woodchip, and the others were all too happy that he was forced out of his position...now that it's some backwoods hillbilly ★■◆● getting the business they're all up in arms. How ironic.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:57 pm

CUDA, how about Luke 16? Those involve the words of Jesus hisownself. Paraphrased, as I'm not going to post the entire text verbatim, was the admonishment that the riches and other things pursued by men(fame perhaps?) are an abomination in God's eyes. As I said, there are numerous(just looked it up--over 100) references in the New Testament to wealth, and none of them are terribly flattering, especially to those that amass more than their simple needs.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:03 pm

it is interesting how many self-proclaimed 'Christians' fall back upon Old Testament examples. Those books are largely rendered irrelevant by Jesus' own words. Now, my personal view of the Old Testament is largely as a collection of writings serving two main purposes:
1. Explaining the unexplained to early civilizations
2. Keeping those same civilizations in line by way of fear.

There is also quite a bit of comfort given to a group of people that had been historically screwed over. Still, the New Testament, especially the books directly pertaining to the life of Jesus, give an entirely different message: one in which, essentially he said to love one another, with special care given to the weak, the poor and the sick. In addition, he said to believe in him and his message and devote your life to non-worldly things. That's it. Little by way of discourse on sexuality, none on dietary or other behavioral things BEYOND caring for one's fellow man. It isn't until one gets to the later books of the New Testament, which quite arguably were aimed at keeping a newly developing church in some sort of order, where you get the scary,vengeful stuff again, and those words, once again, were the clear words of folks other than Jesus.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:37 pm

CobGobbler wrote:Foil edits crap he doesn't agree with...just saying.

no, just yours.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:44 pm

Yes Will, corporations are hypocrites. Few people "love" money in the way the bible says is evil, but if the bible was a dictionary the entry for American corporations would totally be that "love" for money thing. This shouldn't really be a shocking revelation (or a revelation at all) to anyone. If you guys weren't so focused on preventing the government from stabbing you in the face, you might have noticed just about every corporation under the sun has a knife in your back and they are gleefully gutting you like a fish while parroting how good they are for everyone.

Should we have an in depth discussion about how wet the oceans are while we are at it?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:48 pm

CobGobbler wrote:Foil edits crap he doesn't agree with...just saying.

Weren't we having this exact same discussion about Martin Bashir? Funny enough, Cuda, woodchip, and the others were all too happy that he was forced out of his position...now that it's some backwoods hillbilly ★■◆● getting the business they're all up in arms. How ironic.

I suspect Cob, if I were to say how we should all take a crap in your mouth, the mods would censor and remove the post. I don't post such stuff because I think your mouth has better uses

. The duck guy said nothing about any particular person so is no way near Bashir. I hope you understand the difference.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:50 pm

why is Martin Bashir the perennial fallback? Hell, he's lost his job too, after a short hiatus. Never appeared on air again, at any rate.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:56 pm

CUDA, from Matthew 13:
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

now, why, again, did you question the Bible's addressing wealth?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:01 pm

callmeslick wrote:why is Martin Bashir the perennial fallback? Hell, he's lost his job too, after a short hiatus. Never appeared on air again, at any rate.

Perennial? I suggest you look the meaning of the word up. Bashir statement just recently was spoken.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:05 pm

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:why is Martin Bashir the perennial fallback? Hell, he's lost his job too, after a short hiatus. Never appeared on air again, at any rate.
Perennial? I suggest you look the meaning of the word up. Bashir statement just recently was spoken.

I was exaggerating for effect.....it is a recent fallback, you are right, but it seems the only one that comes up from one side of the political spectrum.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:07 pm

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:why is Martin Bashir the perennial fallback? Hell, he's lost his job too, after a short hiatus. Never appeared on air again, at any rate.
Perennial? I suggest you look the meaning of the word up. Bashir statement just recently was spoken.
I was exaggerating for effect.....it is a recent fallback, you are right, but it seems the only one that comes up from one side of the political spectrum.

Yeah, it used to be Letterman and his raping of Pailns 8 year old daughter that was the fall back except Letterman is still on the air.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:05 pm

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:OK, so I'm a baddie for the couple nasty words I called poor Mr. Phil, one he used himself as a term of his own endearment, but he's an OK guy and just a poor innocent victim of that horrible liberal bias?
nope your a baddie because you hold someone else to a different standard that you refuse to even attempt to meet.

I haven't even come close. I've never called anyone vile or compared them to people that perform bestiality. Phil spouts absolute, unmitigated vile denigrating things about people he doesn't even remotely understand, or care to understand in his ignorance. Why should he? He's got the Bible to back him up, so he thinks he's in the right. So does half the population of America. I happen to disagree, vehemently. And if you think gays have it easy, or are whining about their situation, hop on over to Uganda, where they just passed legislation that allows the state to execute someone for being gay, all at the behest of American evangelists who championed the idea. Hate begets hate, and Christians instigated it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_An ... ality_Bill

http://www.examiner.com/article/scott-k ... t-humanity

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/gl ... icals-LGBT

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:And it's OK for rednecks to call themselves rednecks, but not for someone who isn't a redneck? That's the most twisted logic I ever heard. Typical conservatives. They like to wear the shackles of victim-hood, narrow-mindedness and intolerance,
you mean like the black community does? And the homosexual community does? Kind if hypocritical of you just to call out conservatives huh.

Conservatives are narrow-minded, rigid thinking and ignorant. That's why they're conservatives. What conservatives need is a dose of humanity and a lesson in what it feels like to be part of a repressed group for a long time. Then they'd understand why gays and blacks and immigrants and poor people still feel they're being ostracized, because it still goes on.

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:then justify wearing those shackles by quoting the Bible. Of course, they blame everyone else when they trip over their own intransigence and rigidity. Kinda why I don't ascribe to the Bible.
You have no idea even what the verse says that he quoted do you? The verse calls out ALL sin. But you only choose to focus on homosexuality. How convenient to your little victim hood play.

So why do all the BIble thumpers seem to focus on sexual sin anyway when they go out a castigate and preach against all those sinners? It seems to be a running theme, that's getting very old, and tired. They need to crawl away into their little conclave of perceived sexual purity and keep their mouths shut.

Will Robinson wrote:You mean that new Pope who has expressed the same opinion of gays as Phil did (minus the contrasting of anus to vagina of course)?

Yes, he has. But he has changed the modern church's focus from all things sex and abortion to helping the poor and the downtrodden like the church originally did. I'd say that's a pretty good change. Anyone that pisses of Rush Limbaugh is my kind of guy.

snoopy wrote:TC... here's what I'd ask of you:

Take a step back from your views. Read the whole of what you can find in the way of quotes from the article. Then, come back here and read what you've posted and tell me whose words are more hateful. My earlier point about conformism doesn't mean I condone hateful non-conformity... it means that my problem is with hate, not with disagreements.

Phil's statements still are denigrating and humiliating. There's no 2 ways around it. You really need to look at them from the other view to realize that. And hate is one of those things that's hard to quash because it festers as long as people keep picking at the scab, and Phil just pulled off the whole scab.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:11 pm

As I might have noted already, the worst stuff that Phil came up with was the notion that all the black folks in Louisiana during his childhood were 'Happy Happy Happy' and never had a bad thing to say about white people until the Civil Rights Act became law. Gee, Phil, I wonder why? Could, just perhaps, it have been that any black man in Louisiana in the 1950's would have been likely beaten or killed for uttering such a sentiment? To me, that stupid commentary was as aggregious as his homosexuality remarks.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 4:18 pm

By the way, all the conservative haters here are forgetting that I originally said Phil HAD the freedom of speech to say what he said, even if I didn't LIKE what he said. Ignorant Phil has the right to speak ignorant trash, as we all do in a free country. However, I wasn't advocating censoring him. Even Jon Stewart thought so.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewart-du ... 46093.html

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:14 pm

callmeslick wrote:it is interesting how many self-proclaimed 'Christians' fall back upon Old Testament examples. Those books are largely rendered irrelevant by Jesus' own words. Now, my personal view of the Old Testament is largely as a collection of writings serving two main purposes:
1. Explaining the unexplained to early civilizations
2. Keeping those same civilizations in line by way of fear.

There is also quite a bit of comfort given to a group of people that had been historically screwed over. Still, the New Testament, especially the books directly pertaining to the life of Jesus, give an entirely different message: one in which, essentially he said to love one another, with special care given to the weak, the poor and the sick. In addition, he said to believe in him and his message and devote your life to non-worldly things. That's it. Little by way of discourse on sexuality, none on dietary or other behavioral things BEYOND caring for one's fellow man. It isn't until one gets to the later books of the New Testament, which quite arguably were aimed at keeping a newly developing church in some sort of order, where you get the scary,vengeful stuff again, and those words, once again, were the clear words of folks other than Jesus.

I'm assuming your "self proclaiming" snark was directed at me. Funny how someone that doesnt understand the text chooses to lecture someone on it. And FYI there are over 600 texts that discuss the handling of money.
maybe you should look at all of them before choosing the 2 that fit your agenda. Maybe you should attempt to understand the context of the verses instead of doing what so many ignorant people do and choose a single text to suit their personal gain. Only problem is that would require uou to have an open mind. Something uou have demonstrated time snd time again that you are unwilling to do. So the question remains. Who's the bigot. Fighting bigotry with bigotry is well. BIGOTED

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:23 pm

callmeslick wrote:CUDA, from Matthew 13:
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

now, why, again, did you question the Bible's addressing wealth?

do you not understand the reason the bible talk against wealth in those texts. It is because it becomes their god. I understand this might be a difficult concept for you to understand. But give it a shot. I dare you. See if you grasp it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:27 pm

CUDA wrote:I'm assuming your "self proclaiming" snark was directed at me

not really, most of the time....but, run with it, for the sake of debate.

. Funny how someone that doesnt understand the text chooses to lecture someone on it. And FYI there are over 600 texts that discuss the handling of money.

first off, try not to be so arrogant to assume I don't understand biblical text as well as you, or not at all. And, the 100 plus number refers to items dealing with the idea of wealth and coveting money.

maybe you should look at all of them before choosing the 2 that fit your agenda.

well, I've cited three, so far, and Jesus was pretty consistent, let's give him that. You, on the other hand cited an Old Testament-era King of Israel.
I might 'not understand', but I'm pretty sure David wasn't a Christian......

Maybe you should attempt to understand the context of the verses instead of doing what so many ignorant people do and choose a single text to suit their personal gain.

not having time, nor likely bandwidth to download the entire New Testament, or even every quote by Jesus regarding the subject, I chose 3 that deal with wealth, corruption by same and the like. Once again, you arrogantly assume I do not understand the New Testament....I dare say I do every bit as much as you, as you tend to cherry pick yourownself.

Only problem is that would require uou to have an open mind.

oh, here it comes....the ad hominem comeback. Oh, wait.....maybe he's going to cite a New Testament counter argument after this bit....

Something uou have demonstrated time snd time again that you are unwilling to do. So the question remains. Who's the bigot. Fighting bigotry with bigotry is well. BIGOTED

damn! I was right with the first guess. Thanks, CUDA.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:30 pm

CUDA wrote:
callmeslick wrote:CUDA, from Matthew 13:
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

now, why, again, did you question the Bible's addressing wealth?
do you not understand the reason the bible talk against wealth in those texts. It is because it becomes their god. I understand this might be a difficult concept for you to understand. But give it a shot. I dare you. See if you grasp it.

once again, insults don't become you. First off, I understand the context PERFECTLY, and it is my opinion that the Robertson clan has fallen prey to exactly what Jesus warned against. Note, this is my OPINION, and has been since the middle of the summer. The vibe just got a little too, well, greedy, preachy, and self-absorbed with their own words around many in the cast.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:19 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:
callmeslick wrote:CUDA, from Matthew 13:
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

now, why, again, did you question the Bible's addressing wealth?
do you not understand the reason the bible talk against wealth in those texts. It is because it becomes their god. I understand this might be a difficult concept for you to understand. But give it a shot. I dare you. See if you grasp it.
once again, insults don't become you.

But apparently they become you just fine. Why else would you make the snark comment about the "so called Christian"

First off, I understand the context PERFECTLY, and it is my opinion that the Robertson clan has fallen prey to exactly what Jesus warned against. Note, this is my OPINION, and has been since the middle of the summer. The vibe just got a little too, well, greedy, preachy, and self-absorbed with their own words around many in the cast.

well you are entitled to your "opinion" but you should choose your words more wisely because you are intent on making it a fact.

and since you have such a perfect working knowledge of scripture, here's one for you.

Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite. Pull the plank from your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck in your brothers eye

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:30 pm

I think the premise that if Jesus himself didn't clearly address something that somehow it doesn't carry as much scriptural weight is obviously wrong. The Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally "God-breathed). That means you don't get to ignore or down-play the things that the Lord's apostles wrote just because it's convenient, Slick.

I think Cuda is right that you seem to be trying to say something about wealth that the Bible doesn't say. Cuda's Old Testament references are very pertinent. It has never been wealth itself that is ungodly, it is entirely a matter of where a person's priorities are. Jesus didn't tell the rich man in the New Testament to sell everything that he had because everything he had was bad, but because Jesus knew what it meant to him (and we see by what he did after that his priorities were off). Jesus then told his disciples that it was hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (and elaborated to make it clear to them that it was hard for people who trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God). If Phil doesn't crayfish on what he said (and I don't think he will), I would say it's proof that his priorities are ok.

I believe that the principles of wealth in the Old Testament are still perfectly valid today. At the same time I believe God had a purpose in the way things went in the New Testament with everyone selling what they had and distributing it as each has need, or giving it to the poor. It might very well happen today if people were to come to God as they did then. Wealth is not the goal of life, but wealth is the natural byproduct of diligence, and blessing is the natural byproduct of living a life that is pleasing to God.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:21 am

CUDA wrote:But apparently they become you just fine. Why else would you make the snark comment about the "so called Christian"

I didn't. I used the words 'self-proclaimed', because I was referring to people who proudly proclaim themselves to be Christians. Still, I see you avoid even commenting on the POSSIBILITY that my opinion might be borne out.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:26 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think the premise that if Jesus himself didn't clearly address something that somehow it doesn't carry as much scriptural weight is obviously wrong. The Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (literally "God-breathed). That means you don't get to ignore or down-play the things that the Lord's apostles wrote just because it's convenient, Slick.

I think Cuda is right that you seem to be trying to say something about wealth that the Bible doesn't say. Cuda's Old Testament references are very pertinent. It has never been wealth itself that is ungodly, it is entirely a matter of where a person's priorities are. Jesus didn't tell the rich man in the New Testament to sell everything that he had because everything he had was bad, but because Jesus knew what it meant to him (and we see by what he did after that his priorities were off). Jesus then told his disciples that it was hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (and elaborated to make it clear to them that it was hard for people who trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God). If Phil doesn't crayfish on what he said (and I don't think he will), I would say it's proof that his priorities are ok.

I believe that the principles of wealth in the Old Testament are still perfectly valid today. At the same time I believe God had a purpose in the way things went in the New Testament with everyone selling what they had and distributing it as each has need, or giving it to the poor. It might very well happen today if people were to come to God as they did then. Wealth is not the goal of life, but wealth is the natural byproduct of diligence, and blessing is the natural byproduct of living a life that is pleasing to God.

why is it that so many jump onto the Old Testament laws and mores that agree with their point of view and ignore the vast number of other laws that EVERYONE accepts as archaic(or, most everyone). I note, Thorne that you don't go on here looking to stone anyone to death, or mention the avoidance of certain foods, etc,etc,etc, but a ready and more-than-willing to cite the Old Testament about wealth and the pursuit thereof, when Jesus Christ was crystal-clear about his thoughts on the matter. Do you NOT accept his divinity? Do you not feel, as a Christian, that his view trumps the Old Testament when those words might be ambiguous? Hmmmmm, a convenient sort of Christianity we have going here, huh?

edit the words 'pursuit thereof' are highlighted because that is the root of my argument. Not becoming wealthy through work or inheritance, both of which were acknowledged by Jesus(and merely led to recommend that such wealth be distributed to the needy). My issue around the Robertsons is that they have sought, and actively so, FAME and CELEBRITY, which are akin to the excessive seeking of the worldly that Jesus attempted to address.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:39 am

a good read. No real pertinence to Duck Dynasty, per se, but more to the discussions I read here all the time:
http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/201 ... jesus.html

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:34 am

wow, wouldn't have expected Cracker Barrel to join this boycott:
http://www.delawareonline.com/usatoday/article/4162125

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:45 am

Financial Insider weighs in, with some commentary about Conservative America and why it's failing at the polls more and more:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/defend-ph ... 48300.html

this is a nice, complete list of the lunacy Phil's been spouting for a while. I will be somewhat surprised if A&E reconsiders, in light of this.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:41 am

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:But apparently they become you just fine. Why else would you make the snark comment about the "so called Christian"
I didn't. I used the words 'self-proclaimed', because I was referring to people who proudly proclaim themselves to be Christians. Still, I see you avoid even commenting on the POSSIBILITY that my opinion might be borne out.

You're wrong about Christ's position on money.

Youu "might" be correct about Phil. However it's not your place to judge him or even make your position right which you are insistant on doing.
You dont know his heart on the matter.

You want to make Phil out to be a bad guy because he is working to get more money and is becoming wealthy. Will you hold yourself to that same standard?
You have on many occasions bragged about yours and your families wealth. Hence my quote regarding the plank. You want to make your opinion about him as fact, when you cannot possibly know. but you cannot see that because you are blind to your own transgressions
you dont know what he does with his money. And by condenming him over his wealth, you condemn yourself