DescentBB

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.

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."

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.

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.

CUDA wrote:.
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.

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.....

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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?

CUDA wrote: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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.