Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Fool Moon
Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

'Duck Dynasty' Attracts Christian Conservatives


732 replies to this topic

#101 Helice

Helice

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 11,372 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:44 AM

I am far from useless here. Unless you post a link to what was said, you won;t catch me looking through reams of posts. I have no idea what thread it is in. If you won;t lift a finger to help, then don't make nasty comments about why I won't kow-tow to your demands.

 

You have no right or any reason to make your vile judgments. They are only revealing your hatred.

 

 

Here: -->  http://foolmoon.com/...e-2#entry278357

 

I lifted a finger to help! 

 

We have an efficient and easy-to-use search form here at Fool Moon.  It's in the upper right corner of every page on the site.  There... I "kow-towed to your demands" .  :)  You're welcome.

 

Speaking of "vile judgements"... pot, meet kettle.

 

Speaking of "revealing hatred", pot, meet... oh wait.  I already said that.



#102 Helice

Helice

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 11,372 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:48 AM

Civil unions between any consenting adult is not something I have anything against. It is the way of the world. However, when people want to usurp rights that God has given to certain people---marriage between one man and one woman---then I have a right to speak up about it. It is when homosexuals make demands that man isn't even in the position to grant in the first place that cause Christians all over the world to speak out.

 

A secular marriage is a civil union, for heterosexuals and homosexuals as well.

 

So, is it only the word "marriage" that you object to?



#103 minesadorada

minesadorada

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 05:32 AM

I'm puzzled as to what a True Christian™ considers "perverted" in the realm of sexual relations.

 

Is it only the missionary position between married men and women in a dark room strictly for the purpose of making a baby?

 

If not, then what else is acceptable to the True Christian™?  Oral sex - is that OK? (I don't think it's prohibited in the Bible)



#104 Quantril

Quantril

    racist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 05:50 AM

Because that isn't the issue. We already know what a racist you are. I want Desperaux's response as to whether or not she finds your words as offensive as she does mine.

 

Well, go ahead and quote it so she and others can make that deceision.

 

Quantrill



#105 Helice

Helice

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 11,372 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 06:00 AM

I have already provided the link to it.  There's no need to further dirty up the board by repeating an objectionable term.



#106 Quantril

Quantril

    racist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 06:01 AM

For all who are interested.  The post where the 'n' word was used was on page 2 of this thread.  My post #42

 

There I said they should do to Phil like they did to poor Paula Dean if they really want to hang him. 

 

"I know, They should ask Phil if he ever used the word '[THE 'N' WORD]'."

 

Quantrill


Edited by Helice, 31 December 2013 - 06:03 AM.
Objectionable content


#107 Helice

Helice

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 11,372 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 06:02 AM

Did I not just say that we don't want to dirty up these posts any further...?

 

Please cease and desist.



#108 Quantril

Quantril

    racist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 06:03 AM

A secular marriage is a civil union, for heterosexuals and homosexuals as well.

 

So, is it only the word "marriage" that you object to?

 

It is homosexuals that we object to because the Bible is clear that they are an abomination to God.

 

Quantrill



#109 Quantril

Quantril

    racist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 06:07 AM

Did I not just say that we don't want to dirty up these posts any further...?

 

Please cease and desist.

 

I was posting before and never saw your post till after I posted. 

 

Quantrill



#110 minesadorada

minesadorada

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 07:14 AM

Talking of sexual misbehaviour, here's an excerpt from a popular fundamentalist Bible Study site:

Behind many sexual related struggles and failures, lies unclean spirits. They often enter through sexual defilement, and it is not uncommon to find them behind many sexual struggles. However, before these unclean spirits can be cast out, the minister must first know about them. Many deliverances are either not complete, or have failed simply because the person hasn't opened up with the minister about everything that needed to come fourth. This is why it is important to bring up such failures and struggles when going through a deliverance. Even if you have repented of those sins, there may be spirits lingering that must still be driven out.

source: http://www.greatbibl...sexual-sins.php (my bold emphasis)

 

Does anyone else think these are creepy demands from a True Christian™ minister?  Does every fundamentalist pastor expect you to divulge your intimate sexual history to him in order to gain "deliverance"?



#111 Dax

Dax

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 21,346 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 10:07 AM

If the article were written in proper English it might be readable. But "behind many sexual related struggles and failures lies unclean spirits" is a grammatical disaster. It should read  "...behind many SEXUALLY related struggles and failures LIE unclean spirits.  And "...everything that needed to come FOURTH..." is just ridiculous. When ignorance of the English language peppers a post of any kind, you can bet the poster has a third or fourth grade mentality, and nothing they say should be considered as anything approaching intelligence.

 

Aside from that, Mines is absolutely correct that this is creepy. On the other hand, fundamentalist clergymen have never been known for their sexual discretion.



#112 Desperaux

Desperaux

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:00 PM

Here: -->  http://foolmoon.com/...e-2#entry278357

 

I lifted a finger to help! 

 

We have an efficient and easy-to-use search form here at Fool Moon.  It's in the upper right corner of every page on the site.  There... I "kow-towed to your demands" .  :)  You're welcome.

 

Speaking of "vile judgements"... pot, meet kettle.

 

Speaking of "revealing hatred", pot, meet... oh wait.  I already said that.

 

Where have I been vile? All I see is admins and others abusing strong Christians, and making every thread in this section into a personal matter, attacking them at every turn.

 

As for the quote here:

 

Helice

 

So homosexuals and blacks are the majority of  viewers of 'Duck Dynasty'.   Sure.   Thats why they still are running the show with Phil in it.  Because their viewers are so upset. 

 

No, they bowed low to the homo and black pressure.   And it backfired.   And we will see if they got the guts to stand by their guns.  Something you don't think they will do becasue of money.  Which you are probably right.  But they didn't do it in the first place because of  money.  They did it to get some Southern cracker to apologize like poor Paula Adams did.

 

I know.  They should ask Phil if he ever used the word 'nigger'.   Surely he has and then they could really get on the hate band wagon.

 

Quantrill

 

 

What on earth are you so rattled about? Certainly you have heard these words before. They are used in perspective. I would choose not to use a couple of them that you seem to find distasteful, but then again I find being called a bigot and a schizophrenic and worthless even worse, because it is pointed directly at me by members of this very forum.



#113 Desperaux

Desperaux

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:02 PM

A secular marriage is a civil union, for heterosexuals and homosexuals as well.

 

So, is it only the word "marriage" that you object to?

 

I believe that if homosexuals have a lifelong relationship and one dies, the other deserves to be able to receive benefits as a surviving "spouse". A civil arrangement can do that for them. As for a true marriage---it isn't, and neither should it be paraded out as one. It is a civil partnership.



#114 Desperaux

Desperaux

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:03 PM

I'm puzzled as to what a True Christian™ considers "perverted" in the realm of sexual relations.

 

Is it only the missionary position between married men and women in a dark room strictly for the purpose of making a baby?

 

If not, then what else is acceptable to the True Christian™?  Oral sex - is that OK? (I don't think it's prohibited in the Bible)

 

Curious? Read the Bible and you will discover what a perversion is. It is something that is normal--twisted.



#115 minesadorada

minesadorada

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,523 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:38 PM

Curious? Read the Bible and you will discover what a perversion is. It is something that is normal--twisted.

I am an atheist, so I am no expert on holy books, but I gather that you are.  So I was asking you as a self-professed Bible Expert to comment.

 

Was that too much trouble for you?

 

Your opinion about normal/twisted is not informative, since I think oral sex is normal human behaviour; but I still don't know what your holy book says about it.



#116 Desperaux

Desperaux

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:49 PM

I am an atheist, so I am no expert on holy books, but I gather that you are.  So I was asking you as a self-professed Bible Expert to comment.

 

Was that too much trouble for you?

 

Your opinion about normal/twisted is not informative, since I think oral sex is normal human behaviour; but I still don't know what your holy book says about it.

 

 

God says that the marriage bed is undefiled, which means whatever Christians husbands and wives do in the sanctity of their own bedroom, is OK with God---however we must not be abusive to one another. He revels in our lovemaking. He is the creator of it!



#117 stone

stone

    Computer Tips Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,888 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 02:59 PM

*
POPULAR

Where I get confused is that the only thing spoken out against homosexuality in the bible is found in the old testament... But then you get the conservatives saying the old testament is not to be followed anymore. But if the old testament is not to be followed anymore, then why are they still stating homosexuality is a sin? If the old testament IS to be somewhat followed, is it not hypocritical to state homosexuality is a sin but then not to quarantine women while they menstruate or ban them from talking in church? 

 

I'm confused. 



#118 Quantril

Quantril

    racist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:17 PM

Where I get confused is that the only thing spoken out against homosexuality in the bible is found in the old testament... But then you get the conservatives saying the old testament is not to be followed anymore. But if the old testament is not to be followed anymore, then why are they still stating homosexuality is a sin? If the old testament IS to be somewhat followed, is it not hypocritical to state homosexuality is a sin but then not to quarantine women while they menstruate or ban them from talking in church? 

 

I'm confused. 

 

Yes I know.

 

Quantrill



#119 Desperaux

Desperaux

    enthusiastic member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:32 PM

Where I get confused is that the only thing spoken out against homosexuality in the bible is found in the old testament... But then you get the conservatives saying the old testament is not to be followed anymore. But if the old testament is not to be followed anymore, then why are they still stating homosexuality is a sin? If the old testament IS to be somewhat followed, is it not hypocritical to state homosexuality is a sin but then not to quarantine women while they menstruate or ban them from talking in church? 

 

I'm confused. 

 

Much is said in the New Testament, too.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

Romans 1:25-27

They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

 

1 Timothy 1:8-10 We know that the law is good when used correctly. For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. 10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders,liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching

 



#120 Helice

Helice

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 11,372 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:37 PM

I believe that if homosexuals have a lifelong relationship and one dies, the other deserves to be able to receive benefits as a surviving "spouse". A civil arrangement can do that for them. As for a true marriage---it isn't, and neither should it be paraded out as one. It is a civil partnership.

 

 

Well!  That seems reasonable enough!  :)

 

You have no problem with a secular civil union, you only object to describing such as "marriage" because you feel that this is a term reserved for a religious event which has special qualities that aren't applicable to same-sex couples.

 

I think most of us can live with that.  High-fives!

 

B)





Reply to this topic



  


Copyright © 2016 Fool Moon LLC