Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[savone]

Getting back to the topic.
I went ahead and gave the show a second look today.
And…it ain’t bad.
I’m still no fan of “reality tv”, but it has a charm that is hard not enjoy.
Or maybe I’ve lived in WV too long…

I want to thank GLAAD for introducing me to this show.

My impression is that this is one of the least scripted shows of this type. So, “what you see is what you get” with Robertsons and friends. There is some scuttlebuck that A&E was less than sincere in developing this program. Rather than like, or fall in love with, the Robertsons, it was thought that people would laugh at, underscore at, them.

I think regular viewers were not surprised in the least by Mr. Robertson’s statements and beliefs. My opinion is that the best outcome for the Robertsons’ would be a parting of the ways. A&E has demonstrated it is lacking in a numbers of ways. I personally wouldn’t want to partner with them on a dog food commerical.

 

[Gorgias]

Um, that’s sort of the point. What was once viewed as completely legitimate when supported by scripture now seems abhorrent. It’s exceptionally easy to say, “Well, of course *that *example is ludicrous. But this, this example is spot on.”

OK… so, you’re asserting that the defense of the Scriptural prohibition against homosexual activity is ludicrous? That it is not completely legitimate?

The Bible can definitely be used to defend slavery, my friend.

No, it cannot. The ‘slavery’ supported by the OT is indentured servitude, not slavery! It’s explicitly meant to last less than seven years, at which point – the debts that led to the ‘slavery’ having been sufficiently repaid – the ‘slave’ is returned to freedom. As others have mentioned, it is not the chattel slavery that we experienced in the U.S.! Your argument is really weak – all you’re saying is that, since it’s possible for some people to mis-interpret Scripture, therefore it is impossible to correctly interpret Scripture! That’s just patently silly!

I could easily point to the fact that Leviticus prohibits and condones many things we find ridiculous today

You could; and, if we were arguing for these things, then you’d have a point. But, we’re not, and so, you don’t.

I could easily point to the fact that Christ never spoke about homosexuality

You could; and in doing so, you’d be making the most easily rebuttable of all arguments against the Scriptural prohibition against homosexual behavior. You see, Scripture itself tells us that it doesn’t contain all the things that Jesus said and did (cf John 21:25); and yet, we’re held to all the teachings of Jesus – including those that didn’t appear in the Gospels but do appear in the rest of the NT! Moreover, this argument seems to say that the ‘Word of God’ only appears in the Gospels, and not in, for example, 1 Cor 6 or Romans 1. Inasmuch as Jesus is the Logos, the Word of God, then the whole Bible is the Word of God, and therefore, the revelation of Jesus! But then again, you already knew that… right?

100, 150, 200 years from now, one can only guess what will be justified or condemned using scripture as support.

Agreed. Again, though, it all comes down to this: you’re asserting that since it is true that there exist misinterpretations of Scripture, therefore it is true that there cannot be accurate interpretations of Scripture. This is clearly not a good logical argument.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

My impression is that this is one of the least scripted shows of this type. So, “what you see is what you get” with Robertsons and friends. There is some scuttlebuck that A&E was less than sincere in developing this program. Rather than like, or fall in love with, the Robertsons, it was thought that people would laugh at, underscore at, them.

I think regular viewers were not surprised in the least by Mr. Robertson’s statements and beliefs. My opinion is that the best outcome for the Robertsons’ would be a parting of the ways. A&E has demonstrated it is lacking in a numbers of ways. I personally wouldn’t want to partner with them on a dog food commerical.

So, they thought they were getting a 21st century Beverly Hillbillies with lotsa “drama” to draw an audience that likes trainwrecks. And what they got was completely different and drew a different type of audience.
Oddly, that was the attitude of the networks back in the sixties with all rural comidies. When CBS did their famous ‘tree purge’ in 1971, they never dreamed these shows would live on decades later in reruns.

 

[classica87]

Maybe this is an unnecessary comment, but I’ve realized after reading the comments on several articles dealing with this, that the people who disparage Mr. Robertson are morally relativistic at best and atheistic on the opposite end. That, or are too PC to have a normal discussion without taking another man’s opinion as a personal attack on the very core of their being.

If anything needs to be done, we should all pray. This country seems to have lost most, if not all, definite moral principles. There is no more black and white; everyone is wishy-washy, and so used to political correctness they can’t function like rational, sane human beings.

What makes me sad is (especially having LGBT friends) that I see a group of people placing sexuality at the core of their being, as if they’re defined by what they do behind closed doors. I want to run down the street and slap people and scream, “You have a SOUL! You are God’s CHILD! STOP SHORT-CHANGING YOURSELF!” Our self-worth is connected to so much more than sexuality. I don’t want to be defined by finite, human love. I want to be defined by real, authentic, INFINITE Love!

Rant over.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

This is a really good case-in-point. While you may find Biblical justifications for the type of slavery practiced here in the U.S. problematic, those in favor of the practice 150 years ago did not – they (like those arguing against homosexuality based on scripture today) were convinced of the righteousness of their arguments.

Why do you keep avoiding the fact that the Church guides us on our interpretation. And the Church is always correct.

Why do you keep dragging on topics with hypotheticals that are irrelevant. Church teaching is clear on this matter. Whatever she says is not worth debating. EVER. God has already accounted for hypotheticals.

Where Phil agrees with the Church, he is correct. Where he disagrees, he is wrong. Same for everyone alive today.

All this talk of misinterpreting this and that is silly - the Church doesn’t do that. Asking “what if we are wrong” is pointless, since we are never wrong, in terms of biblical moral theology.

 

[Brendan]

I could easily point to the fact that Christ never spoke about homosexuality – .

If you did so, that would be a denial that it was Christ who was the God of Leviticus, and that it was some other God who was the primary author of the Old Testament.

 

[Brendan]

This is a really good case-in-point. While you may find Biblical justifications for the type of slavery practiced here in the U.S. problematic, those in favor of the practice 150 years ago did not – they (like those arguing against homosexuality based on scripture today) were convinced of the righteousness of their arguments.

Which is why we should always forsake our own personal interpretations, as your personal interpretation can be just as flawed as any that you bring up.

So look to the Church and follow what the Church says.

 

[Marie5890]

Not exactly a loss to American cultural life.

That was my thought.

 

[gracepoole]

Why do you keep avoiding the fact that the Church guides us on our interpretation. And the Church is always correct.

Why do you keep dragging on topics with hypotheticals that are irrelevant. Church teaching is clear on this matter. Whatever she says is not worth debating. EVER. God has already accounted for hypotheticals.

Where Phil agrees with the Church, he is correct. Where he disagrees, he is wrong. Same for everyone alive today.

All this talk of misinterpreting this and that is silly - the Church doesn’t do that. Asking “what if we are wrong” is pointless, since we are never wrong, in terms of biblical moral theology.

No need to become wildly disturbed by questions – they’re simply inquiries. And I can’t imagine how questions about faith can cause such distress if they’re so easily answered.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is a really good case-in-point. While you may find Biblical justifications for the type of slavery practiced here in the U.S. problematic, those in favor of the practice 150 years ago did not – they (like those arguing against homosexuality based on scripture today) were convinced of the righteousness of their arguments.

Are you comparing people arguing against homosexuality based on scripture to the arguments people used 150 years ago to justify slavery based on the Bible? There is no comparison. The Biblical verses denouncing homosexual behaviour are moral teachings whereas the record of what is more akin to indentured servitude, was recording what happened in ancient societies, but because of the social safety net, banks etc. indentured servitude is no longer needed.

 

[Coatimundi]

If you did so, that would be a denial that it was Christ who was the God of Leviticus, and that it was some other God who was the primary author of the Old Testament.

I am not sure that argument holds up. Didn’t Christ free us from the strictures of the Mosaic Law, as contained in Leviticus?

This is not to say that Grace’s argument is any more sound, simply that the rebuttal you mentioned seems invalid.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Report: Phil Robertson to return to “Duck Dynasty”

 

[Dawnia]

Report: Phil Robertson to return to “Duck Dynasty”

At this point, he will be in the episodes already shot. They haven’t worked out a deal yet for future episodes. Although I think A&E got the point that it’s viewers weren’t happy and they are trying to now backpedal to save themselves.

 

[Coatimundi]

Although I think A&E got the point that it’s viewers weren’t happy and they are trying to now backpedal to save themselves.

Has anyone who has written or emailed A&E heard back from them? I expected at least an auto-responder “thank you for your concern,” but I haven’t gotten anything.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

No need to become wildly disturbed by questions – they’re simply inquiries. And I can’t imagine how questions about faith can cause such distress if they’re so easily answered.

Who is distressed? You are he only person using emoticons to show emotion on the internet…

I answered your questions, as did Brendan. The Church has already given us the answers and divinely interpreted Scripture. To ask hypotheticals or question that which is God’s Truth is silly, and frankly, not something Catholics should be doing.

Asking the Lord “why” may help our understanding, but asking him “what” when He has already plainly told us “what” is a show of defiance for most of us.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

That was my thought.

Yes, shows displaying prayerful, intact, Christian families who display love for one another and are entrepreneurs are so tiresome.

The hubris from these two posts is sad.