A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools

Posted on | December 22, 2013 | 45 Comments

by Smitty

But other Bible experts said the Scripture Robertson cited isn’t quite clear about homosexuality.
“A lot of people misread this text because it’s so complicated,” said O. Wesley Allen Jr., an associate professor at Lexington Theological Seminary in Kentucky.
First, scholars say, we have to look at the context surrounding Paul’s letter.
The Christian leader is trying to get the quarreling Corinthians to stop taking each other to civil courts and being judgmental. “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already,” Paul says.
Things were supposed to be different after they became Christian believers, Paul continues; they were supposed to stop their sinful ways.

There are plenty of areas for conjecture about the Bible, especially the beginning of creation and the apocalyptic end.

But to try to say that the Bible, at any point, is less than clear when it comes to sexuality is a public confession of unreliability. The human form is the human form. The reproductive system is not the digestive system. Sexual activity outside of marriage (which I should not have to state means the heterosexual context, not any of the current ‘novel’ geometries) means falling short of the optimal.

The clarification is welcome. We know whom to ignore. The other good news, as with the Chick-Fil-A blowback, is that the tolerant, easy-going Christians in this country are awakening to the danger of getting pushed around by the godless Commie sodomites who’ve trashed our culture and politics.

This is a crucial step in recovering the situation.

Category: Culture

Comments

45 Responses to “A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools”

pjswan
December 22nd, 2013 @ 9:43 pm

RT @AmNewsWatch: A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools http://t.co/zM5THB14SU #tcot #p2 #news
Josh_Painter
December 22nd, 2013 @ 10:22 pm

RT @smitty_one_each: A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools http://t.co/fayZ3mAAKX #TCOT
Homer J
December 22nd, 2013 @ 10:23 pm

The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

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).

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.

As an example from Romans 1, right after Paul (and the Holy Spirit) points out how people suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness, he offers this as exhibit A:

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)
Zohydro
December 22nd, 2013 @ 10:28 pm

Y’know, the Bible only has authority with believers… And Christians do not “own” marriage or common-sense morality!

The “science is settled” on the biology of male and female, reproduction, and child rearing. The nuclear family is not a cultural phenomenon nor a social construct subject to legal and political interpretation, but a fundamental feature of human society that transcends time and culture. Marriage and family, as we have known it, preceded civilisation itself. Even a “primitive” hunter-gatherer from the furthest reaches of Amazonia would understand this!

Even polygamy and child marriage known from time to time in history has only ever existed along side of traditional marriage and family and never was a cultural norm anywhere!

Not to diss anyone’s faith, but the Left chuckles when Christians “thump their Bibles” in defence of traditional marriage and family, which, as an institution, they merely share with most of the world! Even the officially atheist North Koreans get it, and they do not tolerate homosexuality for the very same secular reasons we all should, namely that it’s repugnant and destructive…
DaveO
December 22nd, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

It is fairly common for folks on either side to misquote the Bible, even without the intent to deceive. A publisher may change a minimum of 15% of the Bible in order to publish it as a new edition and make money off of it – and the Bible is a guaranteed steady seller.
Doctrinally, there is the fight between the modern (post-KJV/Geneva/Dhouay-Rheims Bibles) and KJV, Geneva and Dhouay-Rheims (pre-Vatican II) Bibles. The modern editions of the New Testament are based upon the 3 gnostic New Testaments (Alexandrine, Sinaiticus, and the edition in the Papal Library). If one subscribes to the Doctrine of Inerrancy, which Bible is without error?
So, even without the intent to deceive, someone will misquote and therefore deceive.
There is also the problem that preachers don’t preach the hard stuff: sexuality, gender roles, the what is and isn’t of life… the toughest it gets these days is the annual pep talk on tithing. In countries like Canada, even that is pretty edgy. It’s gotten so that Christianity is pretty edgy here in the US of A.
Robertson may have misquoted the Bible, but he got the substance correct in a very humorous way: shit is not, for the sane and mentally/emotionally healthy, a sexually exciting aphrodesiac. A&E wants to hold Robertson to a standard that the Daily Kos believed is too obscene for its readers and subsenquently fired Bill Schmalfeldt.
DaveO
December 22nd, 2013 @ 10:33 pm

And, irony of ironies: this thread will be followed in short order by “Rule 5.”
K-Bob
December 22nd, 2013 @ 10:37 pm

In your mind, maybe. Admiration is not promiscuity.
DaveO
December 22nd, 2013 @ 10:49 pm

My two cents: admiration may not be promiscuity, but it still undermines the integrity of RSM and Smitty’s arguments in favor of women. Not my blog, I just note the incongruity of it.
Charles G. Hill
December 22nd, 2013 @ 11:09 pm

And the next thread, sure enough, was the weekly Rule 5 wrapup. I had three contributions therein. Perhaps I should have indicated in the text — yes, there is text — that no one portrayed herein should be considered to be seeking sexual favors.

Then again, almost everyone would have assumed that this was perfectly obvious. Repeat: “almost.”
richard mcenroe
December 22nd, 2013 @ 11:39 pm

I for one will have no hand in any sexual favors arising out of Rule 5.
Oh good grief! Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, get over it! | The Daley Gator
December 23rd, 2013 @ 12:29 am

[…] idiotic notion that we can just change what the Bible says to be more PC is a fool’s errand. Smitty has more on one such […]
Steve Skubinna
December 23rd, 2013 @ 1:31 am

Hand, huh huh.

ISWYDT.
The gay mafia want to hang Phil Robertson… | Batshit Crazy News
December 23rd, 2013 @ 1:49 am

[…] Smitty: Identifying the fools… […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
December 23rd, 2013 @ 2:20 am

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/22/us-citizenship-naturalization-ceremony-bizarre This is not a DD story, but I find this condescending story annoying. Why bother to be naturalized if you despise this country so much?
Adjoran
December 23rd, 2013 @ 2:39 am

Mr. Allen may have a point about that passage – he contends the actual Greek words are about pederasty, young boy with older man sex, not homosexuality in general. He doesn’t try to convince us that GLAAD is down with that take, though.

The simple truth is there are multiple instances of homosexual behavior being condemned as sin or abomination, and none of it being condoned under any circumstances.

Mr. Allen may take one debating point over Mr. Robertson, but nobody gets into heaven by arguing a technicality of Scripture.
John Scotus
December 23rd, 2013 @ 2:58 am

Amen! What’s sad is how many Christians still don’t get it: If Phil Robertson can be silenced and his beliefs marginalized when all he did really was to quote Scripture, then no Christian in America is safe. It’s time to start saying no to these intolerant, hateful heathens and blasphemers. While they have a right to live their lives as they see fit, this does not entitle them to force their beliefs upon others.
K-Bob
December 23rd, 2013 @ 3:32 am

Again, that’s based on assumptions not warranted. No wrong assumptions, no incongruity.

The country wasn’t always so obsessed with sex that it became the prime motivator in all things.
Pablo
December 23rd, 2013 @ 6:16 am

Rule 5 is an argument in favor of women.
Alessandra
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:16 am

this needs to be repeated more and more – as people who want to normalize homosexuality ( because of their corrupt ideology) are not going to flat out deny what is plainly written
Zohydro
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:19 am

I don’t believe the Ancient Greeks actually had a word for “homosexuality” per se… But the term “pederasty” ( from “pais” – child, and “eros” – sex) is of Greek origin, and they understood the true nature of homosexuality and saw no need for any specific term that differentiated between the two!
Alessandra
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:28 am

“Time” is run by people want to shove homosexuality as normal. No surprise there. A quick search produced this:

Is Arsenokoitai Really that Mysterious?

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/

Concludsion: “Having more closely documented the particular use of the word arsenokoitai and its consistent witness in the NT, we have discovered that homosexual sin in 1Corinthians6:9-10 isn’t as culturally relevant as many who support the pro-homosexual agenda to normalize aberrant sexual behavior would have us believe.”

– C. Wayne Mayhall
Zohydro
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:40 am

“Arsenokoitai”… (“koitai” – coitus?) A neologism by St Paul! Oh, if they only had urbandictionary.com back in those times…
Alessandra
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:43 am

coitus apparently not from Greek:
coitus

“copulation,” 1713, scientific L., from coition (1610s) “sexual intercourse” (also in coitu), originally “coming together” (1540s), from L.L. coitionem (nom. coitio), from pp. stem of L. coire, from co- “together” + ire “come, go,” from PIE base *ei- “to go.” Used in Eng. in general senses of “meeting,
Alessandra
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:44 am

But I hadn’t realized the “arse” in arsenokoitai”!!! too funny

Even back then they already got it right…
Zohydro
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:45 am

Lame joke, I know…
Alessandra
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:46 am

I’d love to see Phil making it on the next DD episode! LOLOLOL
Zohydro
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:46 am

You’re quite the philologist!
Zohydro
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:47 am

Yes. Yes, they did…
Alessandra
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:49 am

You see, quite a beautiful meaning: joining, meeting.

Nothing like the terds of homosexuals and their perverted minds.

p.s. I use dictionary.com a lot – scroll down and you usually find the etymology
Mike Rogers
December 23rd, 2013 @ 8:23 am

Words so “unminced” that I thought I was reading Stacy until I checked the byline – Nice!

“godless Commie sodomites”

Keep telling it like it is, guys!
Mike Rogers
December 23rd, 2013 @ 8:23 am

Words so “unminced” that I thought I was reading Stacy until I checked the byline – Nice!

“godless Commie sodomites”

Keep telling it like it is, guys!
A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools : The Other McCain | Dead Citizen's Rights Society
December 23rd, 2013 @ 9:40 am

[…] A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools : The Other McCain. […]
NotAReaderYet
December 23rd, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

If your point is valid, why is the Left going out their way to undermine heterosexual marriage? If there is something innate in heterosexual marriage, its seems rather repugnant and destructive to label someone a Bible thumper when he actually agree with you.
Dana
December 23rd, 2013 @ 12:45 pm

The problem with the homosexual lobby’s readings is that they are not just lying to us, they are lying to themselves. Some make the claim that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, per se, and it is absolutely true that if he addressed the subject explicitly, it wasn’t recorded.

But he did say, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) All of the Old Testament laws remained in force, by Jesus’ explicit statement, and that law included the prohibition on homosexual activity. If the homosexuals wish to say that they do not accept the Bible, that’s fine; such is their right. But to say that the Bible does not explicitly condemn homosexual sex is an outright lie.
Dana
December 23rd, 2013 @ 12:49 pm

You needn’t worry: my Rule 5 submissions are always Safe for Work, and my site has an interesting way of documenting Rule 5.
Zohydro
December 23rd, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

It’s “Cultural Marxism”! Essentially, it is that the Left has seized upon the gay rights movement as part of their effort to remodel American (historically Christian) culture to a form more amenable to the advancement of socialism. Strong nuclear families and the independent, self-sustaining, self-perpetuating communities only they can create are major impediments to the Left’s totalitarian goals!

I am not a Christian though I must acknowledge the Christians’ preeminent role in the struggle against the normalisation of homosexuality and the societal rot that goes with it. And I, and many others of other faith traditions have common cause with the Christians on this particular issue… And if there is anyone (derisively) labeling Christians as “Bible thumpers”, I am not amongst them! I merely intended to point out that there are those that do to ridicule and discredit Christianity, which is not my intention. I suppose there are also a great many “Qur’an thumpers”, “Torah thumpers, “Buddhavacana thumpers”, “Bhagavad-Gita thumpers”, etc. out there with similar values who can be great allies with Christians in this endeavor…

My point was to suggest that opposing the “homosexual agenda” solely on religious grounds may be a well intentioned strategy that will nonetheless ultimately fail…
Dana
December 23rd, 2013 @ 2:00 pm

Technically speaking, the term “homosexuality” is of fairly recent origin, in the mid 19th century. As a separate sexual orientation, its definition is recent; the ancients simply considered it a deviancy. Some cultures were more accepting of of male homosexual behavior as an alternate form of recreation, but even in Greece, men were expected to marry a woman eventually and have children.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church distinguishes between being homosexual, a condition, and engaging in homosexual activity. The condition of homosexuality is not seen as sinful, any more than any other birth defect or handicap would be sinful in itself. But engaging in homosexual activity is specified as sinful; homosexuals are required to be celibate to avoid sin.
ZION'S TRUMPET » The Bible is quite Clear
December 23rd, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

[…] A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools […]
Delaney Coffer
December 23rd, 2013 @ 7:37 pm

If homosexuality were “normal” there would be no homo sapiens. This fetish should be lovingly treated as the fetish it is. Fetishes exist. They are REAL. Are people born with them?
We don’t know.
Adobe_Walls
December 23rd, 2013 @ 9:32 pm

Sooner or later they’ll go a bridge too far.
K-Bob
December 24th, 2013 @ 3:05 am

‘Pederasty’ also refers to a certain tremulous leader of a deliberative body.
Alessandra
December 24th, 2013 @ 5:47 am

We do know, however. No baby is born with a pedophile, homosexuality, or necrophilia problem. Nor any perversity problem of any kind.

These are all ways that the mind can be deformed after birth.
Alessandra
December 24th, 2013 @ 5:50 am

That’s how demented they are. The important thing for conservatives to realize is that they will not stop. They refuse to deal with all their perverted problems, because most are lacking in ethics, and so the problem becomes anyone who is sane and wholesome and has a conscience.

The homosexuality agenda is not about tolerance. It’s about fanatically suppressing the truth and anyone who speaks the truth.
Delaney Coffer
December 24th, 2013 @ 12:58 pm

How do we know this?
FMJRA 2.0: 2013 Finale : The Other McCain
December 29th, 2013 @ 7:03 am

[…] A Positive Aspect Of The “Duck Dynasty” Kerfuffle: Identifying The Fools […]