Any Duck Dynasty Debate Thoughts?

[the jiggler]

Originally Posted by The Poet

And does it surprise you that a bible-thumper supports thumping bibles?

There is a simple truth his statement skirts. Just because you say you do not hate someone does not mean you do not.

Rick Warren is not a Bible thumper. But I appreciate the ad hominem to get things rolling.

Not really a simple truth... more a suspicion framed as a platitude. Warren's point was that you don't have to sacrifice what you believe to love (really love) someone who disagrees (really disagrees) with your religious beliefs. This is not another way of saying love the sinner hate the sin. It applies to all parties, not just the Bible thumper.

And FWIW, I know orthodox Christians who say they do not hate and live lives that seem to show that they really don't. Course they could all be kicking puppies when I'm not around.

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by the jiggler

Rick Warren is not a Bible thumper. But I appreciate the ad hominem to get things rolling.

Craig, Rick Warren is an evangelical Baptist pastor of a megachurch whose net worth is estimated in excess of $10 million, and whose "official" annual salary is $900,000, yet believed to be more than $2 million. This is not exactly the type of Christian guidance I'd choose myself, but others are free to do so . . . though it does not seem Warren himself would welcome that "free" part.

You live in Charlotte, home to perhaps the most famous and most respected "bible thumper" of all, Billy Graham. His ministry also amassed a vast fortune over his 60 years of preaching, and he was during that time about as fundamentalist a Christian as anyone. Yet, lest my memory fails me, he assiduously tried to avoid embroiling himself in conflicts such as this one, keeping his peace like I was taught a good Christian should. That was my only point.

I dismiss the comment of Rick Warren out of hand because I dismiss its relevance, not its sincerity. By the same token, I dismiss the comments of Charlie Sheen, who has jumped onto Paul Robertson with both feet. Charlie Sheen is . . . well, I don't know exactly WHAT Charlie Sheen is. Hell, I'm not certain HE knows what or who he is from moment to moment. But his hateful vitriol is, to me anyway, as meaningless as the insipid pablum I view Rick Warren's statement to be. Neither seem relevant to the core issue, namely, should Paul Robertson face consequences which stem from statements he made which others found offensive.

Two other quick points. Warren may be right in stating that Paul's remarks to GQ did not express hatred. However, there is a sermon Paul Robertson made in 2010 that is being cited where he quite clearly expressed what I believe are his true feelings about homosexuality, decrying it as a vile sin for which its practitioners shall be condemned to hell, to burn for all eternity. That seems pretty unambiguous to me. Secondly, you can think what you want about Charlie Sheen (as long as you don't defend Paul Robertson's First Amendment right to speak his mind while telling Charlie to STFU ), but at the very least he knows a little something about facing the consequences of his own words and actions. True, it took him a while to accept it with a modicum of grace, and even to apologize for his deeds (sincerely or not, who can say), but at least he moved on . . . not to a place I'd want to be, but it's his life. I can only hope that, upon reflection and with the passage of time, the Robertson clan can, individually and/or collectively, can reach a similar insight, if not a true epiphany.