Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Now, I do agree that some speech is unacceptable BUT what makes MY view more than Tom, **** or Harry's? if THEY find it acceptable?

A reasonable view of the way reality actually is. Up is not down and right is not wrong. Morality is objective and should be treated as such. That people disagree with objective truth is their problem, not truth's.

Back on subject.
Lets not make this about anything other than what it really seems to be:
A redneck made anti-gay comments and the gay lobby made him pay the price.

This, however, I completely agree with. The story definitely is one about bigotry, but the bigotry goes the other way than the media is portraying it.

BUT what makes MY view more than Tom, **** or Harry's? if THEY find it acceptable?

Haha - in his comments on censorship, Paul censored himself in his comment using the words "Tom, **** and Harry." But as unpopular as it has become, "****" is still a now uncommon nickname for people named "Richard." Although I only know of one local guy that goes by it - and he's a well-known evangelical pastor (and a great guy, by the way).

Jac3510 wrote:But all that is beside the point, because Robertson's firing wasn't a matter of governmental action. It was the decision of a private business to terminate its commercial relationship with an individual because they don't want to be associated with the values that individual espouses.

Three cheers for clear thinking It was a business decision. There are ratings to worry about and financiers who expect a return on their investment. You can't have some yahoo spouting christianese nonsense that could alienate the viewers and the advertisers.

FL

And purely from a business standpoint, and as a business is in operation to make money, it has to be one of the worst decisions of all time. They have literally killed their golden goose. Do the execs who signed off on this "firing" really think that those buying all the DD merchandize and fervently watching every episode are offended by their spiritual beliefs? Those that were put off by their lifestyle and laughed at them as Bible-thumping Southern hicks weren't their audience anyway. The brownie points the execs scored with special interest groups (gay and otherwise), media talking heads, and unbelieving liberals were not the ones making them so much money. Look at the A&E primetime schedule - all week its DD, 7-10 or so. And you can bet that some network is not going to ignore the ratings juggernaut that the Duckmen could bring them.

I don't think the gay-hating Bible-thumping redneck has been fired. He is just temporarily out of the picture. He may be back. He has been very good at getting the show free publicity and that is a goldmine for the producers. Heck...I've even heard of this ridiculous show and it doesn't even air here.

People looooove to hate! It makes us feel Superior and feeds our pride. Watch the producers drag out the Christian yahoo when they think it will be most profitable.

FL

This is about culture as Jac pointed out.

It is about the ideology of radical thought being used to silence Christians. It is a shot across the proverbial bow made to silence those who resist the use of debased natures to throttled the status quo into submission by the left. They control public schools, colleges, now most of the news media, part of the US Government, they attempt to control the culture and use it to silence opponents and if this fails - then comes the more violent means that justify the ends...

I waited to respond to this as I was waiting to hear when certain retailers will stop selling Duck merchandise. Cracker Barrel announced they will as do others...

Hate to break it to you - this is not a game folks. The use of ridicule, making the opposition live up to its own standards, and then use of media force, is and was used to silence opponents of tyranny. Now we have the thought police in action and attempts to actually bash and threaten all - how - by imposing this mindset didactic: If you believe in how the bible defines sin - we'll bash you next, look at those evil judgmental Duck people...

Good news, radicalism is based on stereotypes and slogans and weak on real life experience. People in time, wake up after they lost their rights. Welcome to the brave new world...
-
-
-

RickD wrote: That's the part that bugs me. And nobody's making an issue out of this. What Phil said regarding blacks being better off under Jim Crow laws is just plain ignorant to say. It reminds me of what I heard that slaveholders said about slaves being better off as slaves in America, than being free men in Africa. It's an opinion based on Phil's age, and his upbringing as a white man in the south.

Since moving to north florida, I've found this attitude in the older white people I know here, unfortunately.

Actually, it is an opinion based on the evidence. He did not say that ALL blacks were better off before desegregation, or that it was better for any of them in all ways. What has desegregation and liberal aid done for the black family? Welfare and similar programs have destroyed the family structure in many black areas by rewarding unwed pregnancy and economically punishing marriage. They have destroyed the work ethic by giving away money for doing nothing. In New Orleans and other liberal strongholds, there are families that have not worked in several generations. With no real men to teach them, a higher percentage of blacks (I was going to say men, but lately the girls are getting just as bad) end up in jail in the US than any other race.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But all that is beside the point, because Robertson's firing wasn't a matter of governmental action. It was the decision of a private business to terminate its commercial relationship with an individual because they don't want to be associated with the values that individual espouses.

Three cheers for clear thinking It was a business decision. There are ratings to worry about and financiers who expect a return on their investment. You can't have some yahoo spouting christianese nonsense that could alienate the viewers and the advertisers.

FL

These quotes came up from an interview, not the program. Either way, there is a disclaimer that companies use for situations like this:

"The opinions expressed in this show do not necessarily reflect the views of (the network or production company)"

Disclaimers that they may not agree with the views expressed do not obligate A&E to continue associating with people who express those views.

It really saddens me how people are missing a chance to get at a real issue here with terribly muddy thought processes and irrational assertions about free speech being violated.

As an illustration of the real point worth discussing, Charlie Sheen came out today and blasted Robertson's comments as "unforgivable." Now I don't give two bits about Sheen's opinions on pretty much anything, but the fact that he feels he can say that in our culture, and the fact that people agree with him, is disconcerting. The implication, of course, is that it is unforgivable to hold a sincere Christian confession.

I made a similar point at work a few weeks ago. There is a journal called The Journal for Pastoral Care and Counseling. It ran an article recently on the chaplaincy needs to evolve to deal with our increasingly postmodern world. Such claims are rather standard and even have some basis in reality. The problem was towards the end where he claims that he is not anti-religious (side note: whenever you have to make that kind of disclaimer about yourself, you know there is about to be a 'but' and should probably more honestly analyze what you are about to say), but all religious truth should only be held true if taken in a metaphorical sense. He went on to deride as "extremist" the idea that any religious truth claim can be held as literally true. The fact that such an argument is completely self-defeating obviously didn't enter this poor thinker's mind, but the problem should be clear enough. For chaplains like myself who take my faith seriously, I am thereby derided as an extremist. Far from being open minded and tolerant, this individual (and by extension the journal that found the paper agreeable enough to publish it) truly is bigoted and anti-religious. But what kind of society produces such individuals?

This is the discussion we could have been having. Instead, we have the stupid argument over freedom of speech, which is frankly unrelated. Conservatives have yet again shot themselves in the foot, because they fail to recognize that the liberal reaction is rooted in a belief that the biblical idea that homosexuality is wrong is positively evil. And that is what they need to be held accountable for. But they won't be, because conservatives are making the wrong argument.

Such a shame.

As always, Huckabee does a good job addressing the issue

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BznRxF94M6Q[/youtube]

Instead, we have the stupid argument over freedom of speech, which is frankly unrelated. Conservatives have yet again shot themselves in the foot, because they fail to recognize that the liberal reaction is rooted in a belief that the biblical idea that homosexuality is wrong is positively evil. And that is what they need to be held accountable for. But they won't be, because conservatives are making the wrong argument.

Actually, liberal unbelievers who are angry over Phil's paraphrasing of exactly what the Bible teaches need to be held accountable for BOTH! Yep - they need to be made to admit that what they really are saying is that Christianity and its Bible - both so cherished for centuries in this country - is evil and hateful. And how the vast majority of REAL Christians have far more concern and love for gay people than these other haters ever will. But make them say it - that they are calling Christians haters and evil, and God's Word as well.

But we aren't in a dictatorship. God allowed us to have some semblance and vestiges of a democracy. And so Christians have every responsibility to press for the type of culture that we want as well, just as non-Christians do. We need to speak up. Vote (as we can) for things that support freedom. Vote with our pocketbooks, our viewership and patronage of culturally harmful things. We surely can do such things to hold the unbelieving culture around us accountable.

But it really will do little good to RAGE at those without God's spirit within, so that they will realize that homosexuality, promisciousness, adultery, etc. goes against God's teachings. It's not terribly effective to shout to people that "you are headed to hell and have bought into deceptive evil" if they can't spiritually understand the honesty and truth of such words. So we need to respond with civil and compassionate words and ACTIONS that they CAN understand. Let them see that we love those who don't agree with us - as opposed to how they typically hate those that don't agree with them. Christians should expect the hate, animosity, that we will be targets by the world around us - that's what Scripture tells us. But we still have an ability to thoughtfully respond, to impact and make our voices heard and respected. But the democracy and freedoms that we HAVE been given are going to go away if Christians don't stand up with an appropriate, collective and assertive voice on issues that impact our society.

If you know gay persons - don't shy away or treat them like lepers, or even just indifferently. Show them kindness and love, as you can. This doesn't mean denying who we are, what we are to be, or - once a relationship with them allows - that we don't also make them aware of their need for Jesus and repentance. And both we and they have a multitude of sins that God isn't happy with, I don't think you impact people by making their SIN - especially ANY SPECIFIC sin - the focus of what they need to hear.

Lastly, let's never forget that NO ONE cares about what we have to say as Christians, until they actually know that we sincerely care! And until one has the Holy Spirit inside of them, there will always be limits to what they CAN understand beforehand. Do we get just as upset at the sins of an unsaved, unmarried person who is in an ongoing and mutually desired sexual relationship as we do and unsaved, practicing homosexual couple? Not typically do we react nearly as emotionally to the adulterous heterosexual as we do that of the homosexual. And we're far more likely to focus on the sexual sin of a homosexual than we do of a heterosexual. But God certainly doesn't view sin in such a way. And so what are we most concerned about - specific sins of people or sins personally directed at us - or are we concerned that people are headed for an eternity of punishment apart from God?

Phil spoke again today - extensively. Very interesting. Looks as if A&E will back down as well?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... today.html

I enjoyed reading that.

edit:

but too many pictures

A little off topic but this is alarming:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/12/30 ... ts-groups/
-
-
-

A little off topic but this is alarming:

Definitely is! And oh, what a contrast. The Bible tells us to treat unbelievers and those who don't believe our God's message, with kindness, patience and love. But many other religions treat those who don't believe the same as they do with hate and even extreme violence. Do such religions woo people with love and kindnesses? Typically, not. Is Islam a religion of peace? Not so much! Frequently, Muslims who know their Quran the best are the very ones filled with hate for Christians and other non-Muslims. Wonder why?