It worked this time!
My hat goes off to Mr. Robertson and to all who are standing up for him and the principle at stake. I hope that the entire Robertson family stands firm without compromise.
I wonder something, though. If A&E can effectively fire (de-contract) Mr. Robertson for speaking his beliefs against homosexual behavior, then is it also OK for companies to get rid of people for speaking their PRO-homosexual beliefs? Imagine what would happen if only the content of the speech were reversed in this. The ACLU would be all over A&E then–but not now.
The critic that Redfish Matt cited seems jealous because he’s not as influential as Mr. Robertson. I’m not saying he IS jealous, but it seems so, and the idea that he is makes more sense to me than his critical comments. I’ve never even heard of that critic before today, but we all knew who Mr. Robertson was, and his “graphic” GQ interview just put God’s Word on the minds of the world–just in time for Christmas. The fact that some will be “offended” is par for the course. Why is there always some “Christian” out there trying to find some nit to pick in something good that some other Christian did? Here’s a thought. Go do some of that good yourself, Mr. critic, and then someone can pick your nits and tell you how more “effective” you could have been. As for me, I admire Mr. Robertson’s uncompromised chutzpah. I wish all “Christians” had proverbial gonads as big as his. Pardon the “graphic” language.
On that note, the Bible is a lot more “graphic” than Mr. Robertson. I hope the Victorian-polity critics don’t “cover their children’s ears” when it’s read or criticize it, too.
Some of Mohler’s critical comments don’t really even make sense when read together. He said GQ was the wrong place to address the subject, but he also said that people had to cover their children’s ears from hearing Robertson’s “graphic” words (like “anus”–gasp). We’ll, I’m just thinking here, but who reads GQ Magazine with their 5-year-old? Is that really family material? Of c
quote:
Originally posted by Redfish_mattYou are right about that, and I’ve made that exact same point to a few other friends of mine who have harped on how crude Phil’s statement was. I think what Mohler is getting at is the fact that Phil started talking about anal vs. ******l sex, and so forth. I don’t really think bringing up the nitty-gritty of sexual behavior was the best way to represent the biblical view, if that was what Phil was trying to do.
But then again, he’s talking to GQ magazine, not Reading Rainbow. So perhaps anything goes.
All he said was basically, why would a man want an anus over a v@gina? I don’t think he really got into the nitty gritty. I read the GQ article. I was actually shocked to find that there was nothing “graphic” in there. Also note that the actual author of the GQ article used several swear words and even said “GD”… The author was WAY MORE offensive than Phil. Also, it was the magazine’s choice on what they wanted to publish. If someone was offended, blame the magazine and the editor for not understanding their audience, not the man speaking his mind in the woods on his own property.
quote:
I think you probably are misreading him here. Mohler, himself, is VERY often on TV interviews, debates, roundtables, Meet the Press sort of things.What Mohler seems to be criticizing here isn’t Phil’s decision to be public about his Christian faith. Phil’s been doing it on A&E for how long now? Mohler hasn’t criticized him for that at all, and that was a FAR larger audience than GQ crapazine.
What Mohler is criticizing is GQ magazine itself. It’s just a pathetic publication. Why would Phil even bother with GQ? I think this is what Mohler was s
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejAll he said was basically, why would a man want an anus over a v@gina? I don’t think he really got into the nitty gritty. I read the GQ article. I was actually shocked to find that there was nothing “graphic” in there. Also note that the actual author of the GQ article used several swear words and even said “GD”… The author was WAY MORE offensive than Phil. Also, it was the magazine’s choice on what they wanted to publish. If someone was offended, blame the magazine and the editor for not understanding their audience, not the man speaking his mind in the woods on his own property.
</font id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”>I understand what you’re saying— like I said above, I have made this same basic argument to a few of my friends in chit-chat. To you and I, what Phil said wasn’t all that crude, but I’m not sure folks like you and I are quite the best representation of what most people consider to be crude. I think it’s more of a matter of whether it was appropriate to escalate the discussion suddenly to the discussion of just how folks do the dirty and which one is “superior”. I don’t even know why the pleasurability of the act even matters. Eating stolen ribeye is a lot more pleasurable than eating a crapo McD burger that was all I can afford. It doesn’t make it right.
If we’re discussing the pros/cons of such things from a biblical perspective, then sexual activity outside the confines of marriage is illegitimate. The act of homosexual activity seems to be doubly rejected. How it feels is entirely a moot point.
quote:
Not sure about that. His article was basically "be careful about what you say Christians and who you say it to". I thought it was pretty clear that he criticized Phi
Dang, Matt this $^&* is getting to deep and philosophical for me! I prefer the crude, down to earth, plain, call it as you see it. I don’t want to be trying to guess what someone is saying, I want to know what your saying with no BS. Phil said what he believes and everyone understood it. I don’t think the culture around us is saying anything as a whole. The ones saying anything publically is the minority.
I feel similar, Easy. Not that it’s really too philosophical, but quite frankly, Mohler’s comments remind me of Pharisees criticizing a Prophet. I’d rather have a genuine thought from a real person like Mr. Robertson, crude as it is, than the contrived, conceited, over-polite quasi-truth from someone who basically says little more than, “me too, but I’d do it better”. Some preach to little old ladies in the pews who’ve believed since they were kids and say, “Amen!”, every time the preacher pauses, but Robertson is out there delivering the truth in the dirty trenches where it’s badly needed, and he’s taking persecution for it. Instead of being paid for preaching to the choir or running a church board, he’s risking his finances to deliver the message where some people don’t want to hear it. He’s a straight shooter who doesn’t have the whole Southern Baptist Convention or a fancy title to cover him or gain people’s respect. He doesn’t need them, either. It’s a time to support the man, not criticize him. Bravo to those like yourself who do the former instead of the latter. Mohler may be a good man, but I don’t see much good in what he wrote about Robertson. Christians need to stop competing with each other so much.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
quote:
Originally posted by EasyDang, Matt this $^&* is getting to deep and philosophical for me! I prefer the crude, down to earth, plain, call it as you see it. I don’t want to be trying to guess what someone is saying, I want to know what your saying with no BS. Phil said what he believes and everyone understood it. I don’t think the culture around us is saying anything as a whole. The ones saying anything publically is the minority.
As a unified “whole”, you’re right, the culture isn’t saying things directly. But, as a movement that is shepherding the culture en masse, secular humanism (the worldview golden calf of the left wing) definitely is telling the Church those things said above. They have their own manifesto (which sounds rather chummy and benign) but their apostles and prophets in Washington, in the Federal courts and in the offices of organizations like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU… they definitely are sending the Church a message.
The difficulty for them is this: regardless of how many battle victories they win, the war they have already lost. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.
Saying “I am offended” is telling everyone else that you cannot control your own emotions, and thus you need everyone else to do it for you.
quote:
Originally posted by EasyDang, Matt this $^&* is getting to deep and philosophical for me! I prefer the crude, down to earth, plain, call it as you see it. I don’t want to be trying to guess what someone is saying, I want to know what your saying with no BS. Phil said what he believes and everyone understood it. I don’t think the culture around us is saying anything as a whole. The ones saying anything publically is the minority.
Too deep for Easy? Never! What’s the old saying… Say what you mean and mean what you say!</font id=“red”>
That’s it Fred! Say what the Ruck you mean and there ain’t no problems
Easy, I was addressing the part where Mohler criticized Robertson. I like his direct approach over beating around the bush. The part about the unified theme of the godless culture, though, is correct and not really just philosophical jibber jabber (i.e., what Mohler said and what Redfish Matt paraphrased). That part is definitely true. There is a spiritual war of Biblical proportions going on. It’s not just an American thing, though. It’s a mankind thing. The godless culture (primarily social “Liberals”) is waging war against God and anyone who dares to outspokenly follow Him. In the false and hypocritical banner of “tolerance”, they will rabidly persecute, hate, discriminate, sue, boycott, smear, or otherwise try to destroy–with all the zealous intolerance of a passionate NAZI–anyone who dares espouse the Godly moral laws that they despise. That’s how they show their love of “tolerance”. Meanwhile, they pass laws and file suits to forbid Christians from doing the same to them. Their “tolerance” is one-sided, making it intolerance. Discrimination and hate speech are just fine to them as long as they are targeted at Christians, or anything else that they consider absurd, and not targeted Liberals or things they respect.
If anyone doubts this, tell us what you honestly think would happen if the exact, same thing happened to Robertson if he had said the opposite, ESPOUSING homosexuality. That is, tell us what you think would happen if A&E had terminated Robertson’s contract for speaking a PRO-homosexual belief. I think we all know what would be happening right now. The President of the United States, several other politicians, the ACLU, and scores of Liberals would be preaching to the country about “tolerance”, and A&E would likely be in court, be fined by the FCC, sued by the ACLU, or be charged by the Feds with civil-rights violations. Cracker Barrel would likely be boycotted. At a bare minimum, the media would be ravaging the story as an example of civil injustice. But since Robertson was
quote:
Originally posted by EasyThat’s it Fred! Say what the Ruck you mean and there ain’t no problems
Roger that. That’s why it bugs me when I see “Christians” jumping up to criticize a straightforward man like Robertson in times like this.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
I read the interview on the plane the other day. The entire thing is blown way out of proportion. If tr LGBT community wants acceptance, they have to learn to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with them. Especially when someone responds to a direct question in an interview. Phil didn’t say they’re all going to burn in hell. Also, why is the world surprised that bible thumping rednecks from the Louisiana swamp land are not supportive of homosexuality…?
Cracker Barrel decided to put the merchandise back on shelves. Guess they decided alienating their entire customer base was a bad idea.
I would be interested to know, who at CB made the decision in the first place? Do you think someone in Customer Relations made that decision. It will come out eventually at what level it was. I also wonder if that guy, will be getting his Christmas bonus this year 