What in the world ever happened to the United States of America, folks? Our country is so different from the nation that was founded more than two hundred years ago. I’m absolutely convinced that the reason America went so far and so fast is that our founders were God-fearing men. It was godly from the start. Our founding fathers fled the wickedness of Europe and came to America to build a nation built on principles, morals, and their beliefs in Jesus Christ. They drew upon their faith and biblical ideals to actually construct the framing documents of our great country.That's very close to the end of the book, the third and second to the last paragraphs (before the afterword). (The last paragraph states his resolution to keep "spreading God’s Word... reading Scripture and quotes, carrying his Bible, and blowing duck calls to crowds.")
I bought the book (on Kindle) because I wanted to be able to search the text, and the first thing I searched for was "homosexual" and "gay" to see if Robertson had an unhealthy fixation on the sexual sins that don't tempt him, and I can report that neither word appears in the text. So I searched for "sex" — a search that will pick up all words containing the sequence of letters "sex" — and found 7 occurrences.
The first 2 are about the sex of ducks — in the sense of whether a given duck happens to be male or female. The third is some joking about how he felt after his wife compelled him to witness her giving birth (to their 4th child, the first and only birth he attended): "I knew right then that my sex life was over — although I somehow managed to get over my concerns thirty days later!"
The final 3 appear immediately before the passages quoted above, and they are all in the context of concern not so much about sexual sin, but about sexually transmitted diseases.
This, the second-to-the-last page of the book begins with "I’m extremely worried about our country’s youth." Robertson says his "greatest fear is for one of my grandchildren to come up and tell me they have herpes," and asks "Don’t you think it a little ironic that what follows sexual immorality is herpes, chlamydia, AIDS, syphilis, and gonorrhea?"
Ironic? He sees irony because sex is so much "fun," so why should it "bring these horrible diseases upon us" and why haven't doctors been able to cure them all? He concludes that the diseases are "the consequences of disobeying the Almighty."
Robertson presents disease as God's way of enforcing his rules about sex:
Look, you’re married to a woman and she doesn’t have AIDS, chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, or any of the rest of them. Here’s the good news: you don’t have it and she doesn’t have it. Guess who is never going to get it if you keep your sex right there? The only way it can be transmitted to you or your spouse is if you go out and disobey what the Almighty says. When it’s one woman and one man, you won’t catch this stuff.Interestingly, homosexuality doesn't even seem to be on Robertson's radar, since a same-sex couple, beginning disease-free and keeping monogamous, would enjoy the same health benefit. If we're to reason about God from looking at where he allows disease to take root — Robertson's idea, not mine — then God blesses gay marriage.
But if you disobey God, His wrath will be poured out upon you. It’s not a coincidence that horrible diseases follow immoral conduct — it’s the consequences that follow when you break God’s laws.This is horrible theology. Robertson isn't inclined to think too deeply as he mixes religion and health. How would he explain children getting cancer? Monogamy may be good religion and, simultaneously, good for your health, but that doesn't establish that good health is evidence that God approves of your behavior. People do not have bad health in proportion to their sinfulness, and one can think of behavior that isn't particularly virtuous that would be good for fending off disease, notably avoiding human contact.
Finally, Robertson expresses sorrow over his own past, "running with the depraved crowd," part of a generation that "gave itself over to sinful desires and sexual impurities," and that sets up the final page, calling the next generation to godliness, without mentioning sex again and tying the enterprise of religion to the founding of the United States of America. It's a surprisingly quick trip from the worrying about disease to the beliefs of the Founders.
Robertson obviously would like young people to be religious and, to him, religion demands sexual purity, but he seems to think disease-avoidance belongs in the argument.
What if there were no sexually transmitted diseases (or if the doctors did figure out how to cure them all)? I think Robertson would still want everyone to adhere to monogamy. But Robertson remembers how he behaved when he was young. He enjoyed his sexual fun, and he seems to know that young people want that too. Why not sin as he did and then, as he did, come to Jesus only when raging desire wanes?
Robertson should have a better answer than the scariness of diseases and the notion that God smites us in this life with disease.
***
Getting an Amazon link for Robertson's book, I ran into more "Duck Dynasty" books than I wanted to count. There's "Si-cology 1: Tales and Wisdom from Duck Dynasty's Favorite Uncle," "The Duck Commander Family: How Faith, Family, and Ducks Built a Dynasty," "The Duck Commander Devotional," "Miss Kay's Duck Commander Kitchen: Faith, Family, and Food--Bringing Our Home to Your Table," etc. This is a publishing empire as well as a reality TV empire. Empire... dynasty... they mean to rule.
IN THE COMMENTS: NorthOfTheOneOhOne takes me to task for attributing the reasoning in Phil Robertson's book to Phil Robertson:
Go read the GQ interview again. It specifically mentions that Phil says he's never read his own autobiography. No doubt it's based on his rather rambling philosophy of things. I don't envy the ghostwriter, though.In fact, I had never read the GQ article in full, so I checked it out. It says:
According to Phil’s autobiography — a ghostwritten book he says he has never read — he spent his days after Tech doing odd jobs and his evenings getting drunk, chasing tail, and swallowing diet pills and black mollies, a form of medicinal speed. In his midtwenties, already married with three sons, a piss-drunk Robertson kicked his family out of the house. “I’m sick of you,” he told his wife, Kay. But Robertson soon realized the error of his ways, begged Kay to come back, and turned over his life to Jesus Christ.So what does this mean that the GQ author says that Robertson says he's never read the book? Assuming Robertson really said that and wasn't lying, I'd guess that it means that Robertson mostly did interviews and provided scraps of writing to the person who put the book text together and that Robertson has never taken the trouble to sit down and read it through. So am I wasting my time taking the text seriously? If Robertson isn't responsible for the text, he's a party to a scam, which doesn't seem too godly.
Posts
173 comments:
You can read the Bible thumpers and theorizers poetically and get some area of agreement, in fact some large areas of agreement, if they're any good, which is to say poetic readers themselves unawares.
They'll take it as a truth, which in a way it is.
Morality appears to humans phenomenomally, even before ontology, which itself depends on agreement.
The decoding key is that religion is a poeticization of ethics.
In this case, the other is not a sperm recepticle. Fun though it may be, via an obsession that leads to it, a child is the future that makes it define you as what you will be. You pretty much do sex by yourself even with a partner, unless that's a possible future. Then you do it as a father, with a mother.
That turns up in the Bible in various ways that only seem dogmatic.
In fact they're a poetic truth.
The reason that the Bible sticks around is its poetic truth.
The reason that the Koran sticks around is mafia-like enforcement. It's an economic system.
No Reformation yet.
After that, there will be a poetic truth in it as well. A way of reading it.
Say what you want about these "simple" people, but at least when they lock on to their moralities and behaviors, they tend to work. They don't try to create their view of heaven on earth. They take it as it comes.
I don't hold to his belief system, there are plenty of examples of "horrible theology." But you'll note he didn't say all horrible diseases result from immoral conduct-only that immoral conduct is followed by horrible diseases. Again, I do not believe this, but he's welcome to his...peculiar religious views (regard;ess of how widespread they may or may not be). On the scale of peculiarities in religions, his are quite benign (ask the homosexuals in countries where you can be executed for practicing homosexuality).
So how do Christians think they can influence homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of marriage, when they don't want to allow them to be married? A monogamous homosexual couple should be blessed by the Christian community for not contributing to the spread of dred diseases. Christians expect gay people to never engage in sex with the life partner of their choosing? It's a vicious circle of abuse by so called Christians.
Ann your objectivity is totaly non-functioning in the ven diagram of homosexuality, morality, religion.
Setting out to prove that Phil is obsessed with sex, and finding absolutely nothing, you are forced to interpret what he does not say.
Lots of the laws of Leviticus are for health.
Pork? Unclean. Why? They eat from the feces of other animals. Even at my young age, I grew up with 'hogs cleaning behind cattle.' Because the hogs would eat the undigested corn from the feces of the cattle.
Think about 4000 years ago, sanitation.......Your wildly incoherent interpretation of Phil's words, translates into God inventing trichinosis as punishment for sinning and eating pork.
You get the cause and effect ass backwards
As much as I love the Robertson proving that honor and a mans word do in fact get rewarded in the end, your obsession with trying to portray them as an example of Christian hate, has failed. Move on.
So how do Christians think they can influence homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of marriage, when they don't want to allow them to be married?
Because they can't be married, a word that already means something.
Civil unions have wide support among the marriage defenders. Why is that?
A lack of attributed stupidity and bigotry?
Inga writes "So how do Christians think they can influence homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of marriage, when they don't want to allow them to be married? "
Christians are fine with homosexuals being married. Just as long as it is to willing members of the opposite sex. They see homosexuals as being asked by God to do what everyone else is asked to by God: suppress their baser sexual urges for more "ordered" expressions of sexuality. For most men, that means sticking to one woman. For most women, that means not "trading up" at the first opportunity.
I support Phil's right to his religion and the cultural value of free speech. That doesn't mean that I don't think his religion is absurd. On balance, I think that diversity is better for the long term prospects of the human race. His religion has fostered survival through some very difficult times.
I support gay marriage, that does not mean that I oppose the right of others to not support it, or hold that their arguments are absurd. It means that on balance, I support it, even though it has its downside.
I guess what really hooks me into defending Phil is the idea that the people who watch his show, I have seen it when certain friends come to visit for a few days, and they love it, are not completely without cultural rights. Oikophobes like Inga may think that they know what cultural fare it is best for others to consume, I have no such confidence that I know what is best for others to think and believe.
I guess I believe in gay rights, but not Gay privilege.
rhhardin @ 8:03,
succinct and seconded.
great comment, Mr/Ms iowan2!!
Many people fall into the trap that "if he didn't say x,it must mean he feels y.
It's actually a very good thing, this Robertson kerfluffle. It has truly shown borderline conservative homosexuals what the right thinks of their freedom to love who they are naturally drawn to. For so called Christians to refer to this attraction by homosexuals to their own sex as " base" says a lot. I urge those Log Cabin homosexuals to wake up and smell the coffee.
I have a good friend who is a conservative homosexual. I assure you, he has heard everything Phil has said probably hundreds of times in different contexts, and it just rolls off his back like water off a duck. He doesn't view it as hatred any more than I do.
I am not talking about the "God hates fags" people, I am talking about mainstream Christians.
Ann,
I agree with the previous commenter that you seem to be straining at gnats trying to find things that are just not there.
Give it up, already.
And, as several other commenters have noted, many of the moral laws in the Bible are just good ideas. Them old timers may not have realized why eating pork, committing adultery or other things were harmful. Doesn't matter. All they needed was to know that they were.
This is why they were forbidden. You can call it morality or you can call it a banana. Doesn't matter.
Anal sex? No good from a health standpoint. Not then, not now. Even monogamous anal sex is not good from a health standpoint. Probably no grave danger but you are asking your body to do things it was not designed to do. One partner is putting bodily fluids where they don't belong. The other is getting shit all over the end of their dick. That can't be good.
John Henry
Ann said suppose all STDs were curable.
So what? People would still get them with all the ill effects, even if they could be cured.
Incidence would likely go down. Those remaining would be even more nasty as they developed resistance to treatment.
Some might say that the STDs are the less harmful effects of adultery. What about all the effects on the relations between the partners? Hurt feelings and emotional distress caused by fucking around. Loss of economic benefits to the economic partnership that is marriage. (If the wife is spending money on some guy, that is less that will be available to provide for the family, etc) Pregnancy when the husband gets his chippy pregnant and has to pay child support. Wife winds up paying, if indirectly, for 21 years and didn't even get her rocks off.
Me, I am agnostic whether the disease or the emotional risk is worse. Both are pretty bad.
So to answer your question, Ann, even if STDs could be cured or made to disappear, there are still plenty of good reasons not to commit adultery.
We keep focusing on "monogamous" partnerships. I agree these probably tend to be better but I think that a polygamous marriage with all partners not fucking around outside of the marriage, would meet the same disease criteria. Assuming that all partners stayed within the polygamous circle.
John Henry
Perhaps the biggest downside to GLAAD's dippy attempt to censor Robertson is that it has encouraged people to take him seriously.
I believe in the right of homosexuals to marry like I believe in Stan's right to have babies.
Loretta. Sorry.
What your research revealed is the truth that the hoopla over Gays this and Gays that is a de minimis distraction to life itself.
Robertson is pointing out that real life is about Fatherhood and love for children. And gayness is a dead end in that world.
Robertson's American Founders Puritan Theology is against unfaithfull parents, adultery, and multiple sex partners and abandoning children. That's where life is lived.
The scriptures the American colonial founders were raised on in the 1600 to 1800 era are all about the demands of a Father God on them to stay faith full to Him using the power given to them by His sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to restore to men a possibility of righteousness and fellowship.
But today we are flooded by the morality and life style of ancient pagan Rome. Not that there is anything wrong with a cruel, slave based society that rules the world by conquest and murders for an absolutist Monarchy. The sex is great and no Constitution thingee is needed.
Phil Robertson is talking to the lowest common denominator. Convert the gullible -- first rule of proselytization.
"It's actually a very good thing, this Robertson kerfluffle. It has truly people who actually care about freedom of speech what the left actually believes about that."
There's another version for you.
Ann, I have to note something. Not particularly religious, know people who are and this line bothers me:
Why not sin as he did and then, as he did, come to Jesus only when raging desire wanes?
The "I'll do whatever I want now, and say I'm sorry or I repent later" seems a misunderstanding, same as the statement I've heard before "So all Hitler had to do was say "I repent!" before he died and he'd go to heaven? Yuck!"
Whole idea behind repentance is it has to be REAL; not just words said in desperation, but truly heartfelt or it means nothing.
Robertson's saying the same thing parents do to their kids: "Just because I screwed up doesn't mean it's a good idea! I'd prefer you avoid making that mistake." Not exactly a horrible thing.
Robertson says "I'm a patriot and a Christian..." People like him always like to announce that as self-righteously as possible, don't they? Always wrapping themselves in the flag and waving the Bible while spouting ignorance and bigotry. Nothing new to see here, it's an old story.
Rev says:Perhaps the biggest downside to GLAAD's dippy attempt to censor Robertson is that it has encouraged people to take him seriously.
Sad but true. But his type always is taken seriously in some circles.
"So how do Christians think they can influence homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of marriage, when they don't want to allow them to be married?"
A large majority get this conversation wrong.
This has to be viewed through the prism of a recovering addict, finding freedom through a higher power. In Phil's case, Christ.
For an alcoholic, drinking is wrong. But an alcoholic that would walk up to Phil and said "ten years sober, I drank yesterday"
Phil would give them a hug and ask if they need anything. Drinking is your choice. If you want help, I will share with you how I got, and stay sober. Listening to my story and taking action is your choice. Please keep coming back. Your presence here is not conditional on whether or not you still drink.
That is the message.
Lot of people are getting it wrong. Including supporters of Phil.
The anti, hating crowd, refuses to even attempt to read Phil's words and judge his actions.
Inga is just the most prolific idiot, constantly streaming the message of hate and intolerance.
Phil doesn't care how you rub your your sex parts, but if you want to free yourself from your baser unproductive actions, he will gladly share his experience.
Phil will explain there may be other ways to free yourself of the chains of excess, but this is what worked for him.
And in very certain terms, listen, or Shut the fuck up and stop wasting his time.
If your Inga, your mindless babbling serves no purpose. Dont like the message?????Move on. Your objections serve no purpose other than her own mental masturbation.
"Robertson's saying the same thing parents do to their kids: "Just because I screwed up doesn't mean it's a good idea! I'd prefer you avoid making that mistake." Not exactly a horrible thing."
Well, a young person might read that and think it's not fair that Phil got to have lots of sex and then got right with Jesus but he insists that we skip the sex sex sex phase. Sure, the old guy would prefer that you not have all that "fun" that he's sworn off now.
My comment is about how Phil seems to need to put in all that scary disease stuff as the main argument, not anything convincing about the value of being godly from the start.
Blogger Revenant said...
Perhaps the biggest downside to GLAAD's dippy attempt to censor Robertson is that it has encouraged people to take him seriously.
So now I'm very curious.
Exactly who do you take serious? And what qualities do they have that Phil lacks?
I'm missing the logic of asking why children get cancer. Is there some putative behavioral precondition that has been associated with the disease?
Worse than 'horrible theology', which as Rhardin eloquently pointed out is as much poetry as it is holy writ, is horrible reasoning employed to make one feel smugly superior to some bayou yahoo.
- Krumhorn
Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a particular type of church, especially 30-40 years ago (and perhaps even now in some places) would recognize this teaching.
I think it is unfortunate that Robertson is being perceived as a spokesman for serious Christian thought and beliefs.
somefeller said...
Robertson says "I'm a patriot and a Christian..." People like him always like to announce that as self-righteously as possible, don't they? Always wrapping themselves in the flag and waving the Bible while spouting ignorance and bigotry. Nothing new to see here, it's an old story.
But at least you know where he is coming from. How refreshing it would be for one to announce "I'm a homosexual and a totalitarian statist" as a preface to their subsequent remarks. Oddly, they never do.
Robertson should have a better answer than the scariness of diseases and the notion that God smites us in this life with disease.
Sure, let's all inform Robertson how he should think. And inform one another by similar imperatives until we have perfect thought control and no Wrong Thoughts shall bother us evermore.
Sure, the old guy would prefer that you not have all that "fun" that he's sworn off now.
In his defense, he says he stopped all that hanky panky and found Jesus 38 years ago.
"I think it is unfortunate that Robertson is being perceived as a spokesman for serious Christian thought and beliefs."
Why? Because there are a lot of us out here in Neanderthal land, who have been where Phil has been. Sinners who have been liberated from the bondage of sin.
Well, a young person might read that and think it's not fair that Phil got to have lots of sex and then got right with Jesus but he insists that we skip the sex sex sex phase.
Christianity, unlike political correctness, provides the prospect of redemption that is more fitting for imperfect humans. In the PC world, Robertson would be air-brushed out of the public picture and airwaves as Trotsky was, and prevented from polluting the righteous with his sincere opinions.
Ann Althouse said...
My comment is about how Phil seems to need to put in all that scary disease stuff as the main argument, not anything convincing about the value of being godly from the start.
Go read the GQ interview again. It specifically mentions that Phil says he's never read his own autobiography. No doubt it's based on his rather rambling philosophy of things. I don't envy the ghostwriter, though.
"I'm missing the logic of asking why children get cancer. Is there some putative behavioral precondition that has been associated with the disease?"
Robertson portrays God as smiting the sexually impure with disease but doesn't bother to think any further about this theory that disease is God's way of telling us what he thinks of our behavior. It's poor theology in my book. If you seriously think that's how God communicates, you should explore the idea and challenge yourself with questions about who gets disease in this world. Children get cancer. To pick and choose the evidence that fits what you want to say anyway isn't good reasoning.
"Go read the GQ interview again. It specifically mentions that Phil says he's never read his own autobiography. No doubt it's based on his rather rambling philosophy of things. I don't envy the ghostwriter, though."
Well, bullshit. Does God smite folk who take our money by lending their names to lies?
Humperdink'
I find it educational that some here speak of Phil's story of his early life, as "having fun"
You, and Phil, me too, correctly define it as bondage.
That's Phils message that people don't understand. I think it is impossible to understand unless you have been there.
But not understanding does not prevent those from a self righteous opinion.
Go read the GQ interview again. It specifically mentions that Phil says he's never read his own autobiography.
Then we can add this book to the no doubt enormous list of books that Robertson hasn't read. And as pointed out, if he hasn't read his own autobiography, how does he know whether or not his name is being attached to a pack of lies or unsound lessons? One would think a true-blue patriot and Christian like him would want to make sure of that.
Ann said
"Robertson portrays God as smiting the sexually impure with disease but doesn't bother to think any further about this theory that disease is God's way of telling us what he thinks of our behavior"
God does not smite. People make choices. Choices have consequences.
Ann paraphrased "I bought the dirty book, but not to read it, I just wanted to search for the dirty words"
Romans 5:12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
You may think that's terrible theology, that the death (and the suffering) in this world are a result of the sin of one man (Adam), Yet the Bible is chock full of stories about how humans chose an immoral path, and suffered consequences as a result.
And I'm not talking homosexual immorality. The Story of David and Bathsheba would be my a great example, as a result of David's sin the child born to Bathsheba died.
I recommend you reject all of Judeo-christian theology, because it's all based on the relationship between a fallen man, and a perfect God who has clearly defined standards of behavior.
Does God smite folk who take our money by lending their names to lies?
We have yet to see what happens to Gore and Obama, don't we. We can only hope :-)
As to why children, the innocent, are stricken with (non sexually transmitted) diseases. Many religious people say that it is a trial from God to test their faith and their love. Test their resolve and to emerge as better people/souls than those who are not tested.
People who believe in reincarnation think that the child who is so stricken is a soul who has volunteered to be born and suffer to help the others in their "soul group".
Who knows? I certainly don't, and really don't have an opinion But either way, Robertson's emphasis on sexually transmitted diseases being a thing that God has given us to discourage from the sin of infidelity and to discourage the indulgences in 'sin' and indiscriminate sex, has nothing whatsoever in Christian philosophy as to why children are stricken with diseases.
@Althouse: Did you word search the text for "smite"?
If you seriously think that's how God communicates, you should explore the idea and challenge yourself with questions about who gets disease in this world. Children get cancer. To pick and choose the evidence that fits what you want to say anyway isn't good reasoning.
Do we understand the etiology of childhood cancers well enough to rule out exposure to the world?
Sommerfeller
Phil has a Bachelors and a Masters.
He is also self made successful, at every human level.
God
Family
Church
Community
Friends
Lots of other things
Bottom of the list money
And as far as the GQ interview, I take that with a large grain of salt. Seeing the way People like Ann can't understand his simple words, a GQ writer setting out to do an interview and force his words into the writers preconceived stereotype, I don't really believe that Phil said he never read his own Auto biography. That is must likely some interpretation of a question Phil didn't answer to the writers liking.
Because we should all form an opinion of an entire book and a man's worldview based upon searches for individual words on a kindle.
Because we should all form an opinion of an entire book and a man's worldview based upon searches for individual words on a kindle.
Yeah, his argument was about promiscuity and not about gayness per se. By the way how did gays get Aids? Promiscuity.
That's been a big bugaboo for christians in general. Just just gayness, but sex out of wedlock. Sex just for sex's sake.
Maybe, just maybe, he's on to something.
A patriot with a college draft deferment. A self proclaimed "commander" of an army battling an enemy that cannot shoot or fight back. A judgmental christian who says do as I say not as I do.
A perfect right wing hero.
So how do Christians think they can influence homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of marriage, when they don't want to allow them to be married?
They don't. Christians think everyone should abstain from homosexual sex, whether "married" or not. There is no sin in being homosexual, the sin is having homosexual sex.
Inga wrote:
"So how do Christians think they can influence homosexuals to abstain from sex outside of marriage, when they don't want to allow them to be married?"
How do christians expect to put round pegs through square holes? They don't because you can't do it.
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore gays can't marry other gays. There are these things called civil unions though which would be a recognition of a union that is not your standard marriage, that would apply.
But, here's an idea. Don't be promiscuous. If you're gay and you have sex with one guy who is AIDS/syphillis/gonnhorea/herpes free and you are too, and neither of you stray from the relationship you too can be free of the diseases. It doesn't take marriage to be monogamous.
Well, bullshit. Does God smite folk who take our money by lending their names to lies?
Evidently not. In fact if you're lucky, it can get you elected president.
Iowan2,
So you suggest praying away the gay. And you call me an idiot? I suggest those of you who he speaks for keep talking, LOUD. Do not ease up with the message of condemnation and disease for gays who love their partners. America is listening.
Do not ease up with the message of ondemnation for gays who love their partners.
No one is condemning anyone for loving anyone. People aren't even being condemned for sodomy. The message is one of redemption.
Levi Starks wrote:
"I recommend you reject all of Judeo-christian theology, because it's all based on the relationship between a fallen man, and a perfect God who has clearly defined standards of behavior."
There's the rub. Atheists want to be their own Gods.
They want to be Marquis De Sade and have no one judge them while they hump dead carcasses or whatever it is that libertines might do. Sorry, just took an example from a Marquis de Sade book that struck me as particularly revolting. Not all libertines are quiet as libertineish as the Marquis. But even if they were, no judgments please.
I wasn't aware of the draft deferment for this great self-described Patriot and Commander, Howard. How predictable. As I said, nothing new to see here, it's an old story.
Althouse wrote:
"What if there were no sexually transmitted diseases (or if the doctors did figure out how to cure them all)? I think Robertson would still want everyone to adhere to monogamy"
But there are Anne. There are. Doctors won't cure them all. ANd even if they did, there are other consequences from engaging in wanton sex with strangers.
You can't escape a world with consequences.
"But if you disobey God, His wrath will be poured out upon you. It’s not a coincidence that horrible diseases follow immoral conduct — it’s the consequences that follow when you break God’s laws. This is horrible theology. Robertson isn't inclined to think too deeply as he mixes religion and health. How would he explain children getting cancer?"
You could leave god out of it entirely and still come up with the same common sensical argument.
Let's leave God out of it entirely.
There are these diseases out there. People are infected with them. If you are not careful with your nether regions and hook up with random people you are playing the odds, and may get infected.
Weren't you telling guys they have to be responsible for their semen (lest a woman scoop it out of a garbage can and inseminate herself with it and then demand child support payments)? How is what he's saying different?
Your argument is also one about consequences. Being reckless with your semen therefore is the sinful/stupid act. And you are punished for your recklessness.
Enjoying the (ironic) butt-hurt from the leftards today.
I think it's Ann who has the obsession here, and it projecting as usual. Did somebody's son get the smite laid down on them?
Hope it was curable.
Howard said: "A judgmental christian who says do as I say not as I do."
"A redeemed Christian who counsels: don't do as I did." FIFY
Same thing I tell my children.
"since a same-sex couple, beginning disease-free and keeping monogamous, would enjoy the same health benefit. "
One of the saddest tasks I have had a physician is telling a nuclear engineer that he had AIDS back when it was 100% fatal. He said, "That can't be. I've been in a committed relationship for ten years !"
What could I say ? That his partner had been cheating in Laguna Beach, a big gay play ground five miles north of San Clemente?
Gay marriage, in my opinion, is a fad and an effort to change the behavior of gay men. It may work for old men but I don't think it is going to be the solution they hope for.
Inga said...
It's actually a very good thing, this Robertson kerfluffle. It has truly shown borderline conservative homosexuals what the right thinks of their freedom to love who they are naturally drawn to.
Love means never needing to claim the unlimited marital estate tax deduction.
pm317 said "Phil Robertson is talking to the lowest common denominator. Convert the gullible -- first rule of proselytization."
You may want to wander into a full gospel Evangelical church before making such a sweeping generalization. Our church has business owners, retired military officers, school teachers, and attorneys. As well as recovering alcoholics/addicts and ex-convicts.
Here's what some commenters seem to be saying:
A woman gets drunk and runs over her child. Then she's sorry and joins MAD. What a hypocrite! - she got to have all the fun of drinking and all the fun of salvation.
A guy does drugs and loses everything then he joins NA. What a hypocrite! - he got to have all the fun of drugs and then got a salvation freebie.
Christans in this era have quite often tried out secular values and they are convinced their lives began to spin out of control into ugliness till they found salvation. Christians understand quite well that young people who have warm hearts and passionate emotions do not immediately see the consequences of taking up with current secular values which are essentially cold-hearted and selfish.
In the old days we had Nativity scenes at Christmas; now we have Walmart stampedes during happy holidays. Which side are you on?
Full gospel evangelical church, the one true church, the way, the only way. Catholics and even Lutherans and especially Jews and certainly Hindus, Buddhists and other heathens and pagans are doomed. Homosexuals will be doomed and smitten by disease here on this earth. They get to feel hell before they die.
Something taught to me growing up in a full gospel evangelical Pentacostal church.
Well I just added in that bit about homosexuals for good measure, but the rest is true.
I admire AA for immediately acknowledging her search for a way to attack the duckman through his book.
I have known and envied some "born agains". Their belief that Jesus will take care of them if they do the right thing really changed their lives.
I do not know if they remained that way as long as Phil. Having millions of dollars to spend (as Phil does) would be an easy way for an alcoholic/addict/womanizer to revert back to his bad ol'self.
If gays preached for monogamy with the same fervor that they preached for gay marriage, then gay marriage would be an easier sell.....Is it possible that Robertson made the remark about not reading his own autobiography as a kind of tongue in cheek joke?......In our time, sex is mostly engaged in for recreational rather than procreational reasons. People rarely fuck for the purpose of generating babies. Even so babies that are thus generated have a better chance in life when their parents are monogamous and religious rather than adventurous and free thinking. The bet here is that the Robertson children will grow up with fewer tics and neuroses than Rosie O'Donnell's kids.
"You could leave god out of it entirely and still come up with the same common sensical argument.
Let's leave God out of it entirely."
You can't leave God out. The whole point was to believe in God and follow God.
I'm saying don't mix arguments based on health with arguments based on God.
Obviously, there's a health argument for following healthful behavior such as sexual abstinence/monogamy/safe sex. Health is an argument for health. No one is questioning that. Why would we spend time engaging in such a conversation?
Robertson is making a different claim, that health benefits represent the judgment or punishment or opinion-communicating of God. That's the part I'm questioning, because that is the questionable part!
To tell me not to talk about the part that is questionable is ridiculous.
Why not discuss the sky being blue?
"I admire AA for immediately acknowledging her search for a way to attack the duckman through his book."
Bullshit. I was checking the work of the GQ writer by consulting PR's own presentation of his beliefs.
Robertson is making a different claim, that health benefits represent the judgment or punishment or opinion-communicating of God. That's the part I'm questioning, because that is the questionable part!
Only if you aren't a Christian. Christians have read the Bible and remember the story of Job.
If you seriously think that's how God communicates, you should explore the idea and challenge yourself with questions about who gets disease in this world. Children get cancer.
The unspoken assumption underlying this statement is that all disease is God's retribution for bad behavior. I would be surprised to learn that was a point he was making. Rather, it seems to to me that he was identifying an unsurprising correlation between sexual promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases....and calling it "God's wrath".
Since you are intent upon broadening his observation beyond the boundaries of his statement, why should your theological review limit God's wrath to the behavior of a child stricken with cancer? For all we know, it is retribution for the behavior of someone else likely to feel the pain far more acutely than the child. Say, the child's parents?
Then why don't children of all badly behaved parents get stricken with cancer?
We can't know if that is part of the Robertson canon, because he foolishly left it out of the book.
He also doesn't explain why I, a known philanderer, have never gotten an STD....unless you count that yeast infection I got once from a (married) woman at a convention in Cannes.
Oo la la.
- Krumhorn
. . . and their beliefs in Jesus Christ.
And, unfortunately, right there is where Christianity goes off the rails.
Belief IN Jesus Christ is mostly meant that he is God incarnate and can guarantee the soul's survival fo death.
Essentially, this is a selfish belief, and so without much merit to the communal living Man is programmed for.
Better would be that "belief in Jesus Christ" meant belief in the wisdom of his moral precepts, especially compassion and forgiveness (including of oneself). The Dali Lama calls this "warmheartedness", and it is the same sentiment in Hinduism and Taoism.
And never mind a godly guarantee. Try those precepts yourself, in your own life, and see and certify the benefits yourself.
You will find they need no outside guarantee. They are self-evident.
"Only if you aren't a Christian. Christians have read the Bible and remember the story of Job."
What are you trying to say? Are you saying Christians believe along with PR that "health benefits represent the judgment or punishment or opinion-communicating of God"? And you're getting that from Job? Explain. Seems to me Job says something closer to the opposite. If you're saying that, then you're implying that PR is not a Christian.
And, of course, Job is in the Old Testament….
Full gospel evangelical church, the one true church, the way, the only way. Catholics and even Lutherans and especially Jews and certainly Hindus, Buddhists and other heathens and pagans are doomed.
All monotheistic religions (and most others) believe this. By the way...why do you never mention Islam? Scared?
Homosexuals will be doomed and smitten by disease here on this earth.
Pretty accurate here.
What are you trying to say?
I am saying that the Bible is replete with instances of God using disease and illness to express his displeasure, and your apparent puzzlement over PR mentioning this says more about you than it does Christians in general or PR.
And, of course, Job is in the Old Testament
Newsflash....the Old Testament is part of the Bible. Christians believe in its message just as much as they believe in the New Testament.
By the way, for the record, I am not a Christian.
The list of Deuteronomy 28 blessings includes, "I shall place none of the diseases of Egypt upon you." Apparently Egypt had the longest list of the worse ones.
I'll take that blessing.
A great uncle used to tell me many times over that if you have your health you have everything, but if you are chronically sick you have nothing.
Uncle Donald seem to mean that rich people's money could not buy them health to enjoy their riches...not that Robert Woodruff did not try. Emory University School of Medicine got half a billion dollars of Coca-Cola money along the way.
My son is good friends with the ghost writer who did Robertson's book.
Essentially, this (Christianity) is a selfish belief, and so without much merit to the communal living Man is programmed for.
1) The message Jesus preached was the opposite of selfish, warned of greed and demanded that you love others.
2)I firmly believe that civilization is impossible without religion, and AFAIK, there has been no successful civilization without religion.
I someone tried to introduce sex, hetero or homo, it would be prohibited by the FDA or OSHA, CDC or some gummint body.
Sex spreads lots of disease, and when not, it pollutes the world with babies, which is arguably worse.
Sure it's fun, but so are porno, striptease, tobacco, booze and hard and soft drugs, and they don't spread around disease or babies.
Inga said:"Full gospel evangelical church, the one true church, the way, the only way. Catholics and even Lutherans and especially Jews and certainly Hindus, Buddhists and other heathens and pagans are doomed. Homosexuals will be doomed and smitten by disease here on this earth. They get to feel hell before they die.
Something taught to me growing up in a full gospel evangelical Pentacostal church."
Your use of the word church leads to be highly skeptical of your point here, Inga.
Gahrie, no I simply forgot about them, most certainly Muslims are doomed to hell fire. Absolutely!
Ann Althouse said...
"It specifically mentions that Phil says he's never read his own autobiography."
Well, bullshit. Does God smite folk who take our money by lending their names to lies?
I don't recall but were there multiple postings here about all the research and evidence that appears to support that Obama's "autobiography" was written by a domestic bomber communist. That even includes multiple snide and sometimes serious admissions by the purported ghost that, yes indeed, he did author that book, specifically at the request of Michelle Obama.
There is even at least one instance of first hand anecdotal testimony that Obama never read his own "books" either.
Both of these supposedly factual tomes are filled with composite characters that never existed and stories that never happened, as has been admitted by Obama spokespersons.
Professor, isn't this as much, if not way more, fraud as Robertson's statement about not reading his autobiography? Worst case, there might be some stuff in the Duck's book that isn't true because he never edited it.
In Obama's case, his "autobiography" was entirely built on a set of outright lies and fabricated events for political purposes. Do you condemn this as well?
Humperdinck,
Milwaukee German Full Gospel Church on the corner of 36th and Rohr. The church is presently located in Brookfield WI. So are you skeptical of my point or my assertion that I grew up in a Pentecostal church? Or that this was preached in that church?
Why not discuss the sky being blue?
Why not, indeed. The sky isn't always blue. The sky is not actually blue at all. If we had no atmosphere it would be black. It looks quite different depending on your circumstances. Where you are standing. The time of day. The clouds. The light refraction through atmospheric conditions. It also depends on what kind of eyes you have as to how the colors of the sky/sunset look.
The sky depends on how you look at it and where you look at it. The sky in Mr. Robertson's world may look different than the one in yours or anyone else's . It doesn't make his sky any less accurate than yours or mine.
Gahrie said...
1) The message Jesus preached was the opposite of selfish, warned of greed and demanded that you love others.
Apparently, you fail to see the irony and foolishness of "demanding" that someone "love".
In any event, the benefits to all of everyone treating everyone with warmheartedness, is completely independent of a deity or an afterlife.
Think on that.
You missed the basic point of salvation Inga. It's not the church,the one true church, the way, the only way.
It is Jesus.
No I didn't miss that Humperdink, no at all. Full gospel adherents believe that unless one "gives their hearts to Jesus and are born again", they will be doomed to hell. That includes all other traditional religions, Christian or not.
So, all you Catholics with the wonderful inclusive Pope are going to hell. Lutherans who reject Charismatics are also doomed to hell. Just bringing the true meaning of "full gospel" to light here.
Jews, repent!
To a true Christian, Christian values are more important than Christan dogma.
Inga sea…..Well I just added in that bit about homosexuals for good measure, but the rest is true.
Sure, Inga. We take everything you say as Gospel.
AA wrote:
"Robertson portrays God as smiting the sexually impure with disease but doesn't bother to think any further about this theory that disease is God's way of telling us what he thinks of our behavior. It's poor theology in my book. If you seriously think that's how God communicates, you should explore the idea and challenge yourself with questions about who gets disease in this world. Children get cancer. To pick and choose the evidence that fits what you want to say anyway isn't good reasoning."
It's not poor theology, it's complicated theology.
You're absolutely correct Ann in saying that God doesn't give us sinners disease each time we sin, just as you are in saying that everyone with disease has one because of some particular sin.
However, without sin, there is no sickness, disease, and death. None at all. There is only eternal life.
Perhaps look at it this way. If you set your house on fire, your neighbors house may also catch fire. You might even burn down the entire block. It might not be your fault at all that your house burned down, it was your neighbor who introduced the fire, not you.
But still, the fire had to be introduced first before your house could burn down.
Phil is absolutely right that if the only sex we ever had was within the marriage covenant, we wouldn't have all these sexually transmitted diseases. Surely you wouldn't argue against that.
Interestingly enough, God created the sexual act and the disease.
But if you disobey God, His wrath will be poured out upon you. It’s not a coincidence that horrible diseases follow immoral conduct — it’s the consequences that follow when you break God’s laws.
To me he is clearly saying that God is wrathful and that if you don't do what he believes his God commands you to do - there will be horrible consequences.
I think he is horribly wrong. And I think it is immoral to say stuff like that. God is Love. Love is not wrathful. Love is not cruel. Love is forgiving. Love is kind. Love is respectful etc.
To me, a reason to be monogamous is because you love your spouse - not because you fear some horrible consequence from a wrathful God. I think that that level of discourse represents the lesser of humanity, not the better angels. It appeals to the lesser, not the more. It is encouraging fear choices over love choices.
Not that I think it should be censored, but that adults should speak out against it. There are those, surely, who get a negative ego hit out of seeing themselves as superior to and separate from the rest of humanity and they have a right to be like that. But that doesn't mean others will be silent about it.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Why not discuss the sky being blue?
Why not, indeed. The sky isn't always blue. The sky is not actually blue at all. If we had no atmosphere it would be black. It looks quite different depending on your circumstances. Where you are standing. The time of day. The clouds. The light refraction through atmospheric conditions. It also depends on what kind of eyes you have as to how the colors of the sky/sunset look.
The sky depends on how you look at it and where you look at it. The sky in Mr. Robertson's world may look different than the one in yours or anyone else's . It doesn't make his sky any less accurate than yours or mine.
12/28/13, 12:24 PM
Actually to go one further color is a mental construct.
Inga, If you reject Jesus, which I think is what you are saying, time for me to go. I wish you well.
Inga said...
So, all you Catholics with the wonderful inclusive Pope are going to hell. Lutherans who reject Charismatics are also doomed to hell. Just bringing the true meaning of "full gospel" to light here.
Jews, repent!
12/28/13, 1:06 PM
There are only two possibilities; your sect is right in which case it's God's will or they are wrong in which case it doesn't matter.
" To me, a reason to be monogamous is because you love your spouse - not because you fear some horrible consequence from a wrathful God. I think that that level of discourse represents the lesser of humanity, not the better angels. It appeals to the lesser, not the more. It is encouraging fear choices over love choices"
Carrot and stick or as Al Capone said "a kind word will take you a long way. A kind word and a gun will take you further". Not everyone is fully in touch with their better angel. Some folks need additional encouragement.
There is no greater test of faith than a child with a congenital illness. In the Middle Ages, the clergy preached that birth defects were caused by having sex on a holy day. Since half the calendar consisted of holy days, there was a good chance that the problem was of your own making. You can say that this teaching is primitive and wrong, but at least it offered an explanation. Perhaps it's more life sustaining to believe that we are evil rather than that God is evil, which is the alternate explanation for birth defects.
Humperdinck, Jews who do not believe that Jesus was their savior and the Messiah are doomed too, right? Let's put it all out there for non fundamentalists to truly grasp.
According to the Mormon faith, those who voted for Romney will be saved and the others will spend the afterlife giving rim jobs to Harry Reid.
Fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or Muslim is destructive, exclusionary and dangerous because they continue to try to legislate their personal belief system onto their fellow Americans.
They have a Divine imperative to do so.
Ann - your knowledge of Christian doctrine is so pitifully absent that it makes any dialogue with Christians impossible. You are assuming that the lies made up by GLAAD and their ilk are in fact true, and thus doing battle with a myth.
The Christian theology is founded in Christ. The Torah laws are not examples of stuff that God wants us to do or be punished in Christian theology - the laws were given to the Chosen People (the Jews) because he had selected them and wanted to preserve them. So the laws are a demonstration of God's caring love for man rather than a proof of a wrathful God.
This interpretation is most strongly rooted in the Pharisee-Sabbath incident, in which Jesus explains that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He then goes on to give examples of what are allowable transgressions. (The transgression alleged was that Jesus and the Twelve were walking and were hungry on the Sabbath, so they plucked grain out of the fields and rubbed the chaff [non-edible portions] off with their hands. This was work, and no work can be done on the Sabbath.)
It's in Mark 2
If you really want to have a dialogue, you are going to have to engage with what the other side really believes, not what people like Inga want to claim that they believe.
Phil Roberston said exactly what he really believes, didn't he? Hmmm, that didn go over too well did it? Don't believe me, just listen carefully to what fundamentalists preach.
When we are young, dysfunction follows with immaturity. When we grow older, it becomes a rationalized choice.
Inga,
It isn't fundamentalism to believe that only those who follow Christ will be saved. It's basic Christian doctrine.
Unless, I suppose, you think that basic Christian doctrine is fundamentalism.
Sunsong - what's wrong with your belief about monogamy is that it misrepresents reality. And it's why Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan can come up with the theory that straights are doing the marriage thing all wrong.
If one takes your idea about monogamy literally, then there is nothing wrong with two married people screwing anything else that moves if they feel like it and agree to do so. This is utterly logical - after all, just because one spouse doesn't like rutabaga, that's no reason it can't appear on the dinner table for the other person! Married people make such accommodations for each other all the time, and it is indeed proof of their love and concern for each other.
But this belief when it involves sexual partners kills and injures, and has ALWAYS KILLED AND INJURED. This is why everyone with a brain knows that marriage involves more than just love - it also involves reason.
Reason is conspicuously absent from most "modern" theologies, because recognition of hard realities is also absent. Your lalala God does not exist.
One can of course claim that the God of the Old and New Testaments does not exist, but one cannot reasonably argue that microbes don't exist, and that non-monogamous sex is not a fantastic way of spreading disease throughout the human population. Read the CDC stats! We ran a social experiment, and we have injured and killed thousands, and now Sullivan and Savage want to double down on that.
So all Christians believe that Jews, Buddhists and other non Christians will go to hell. Thanks for clarifying and speaking for all Christians.
OMG! All those Jews who were killed n the Holocaust went to hell, Eric? Merciful God.
MaxedOutMama:
The consequences of dysfunctional behavior vary with the leverage you are capable of exploiting. Consider the diverse means and associated costs by which they, not limited to homosexual men and women, mitigate the risk associated with their behaviors.
Fortunately, the Democrats only have to offer promises of salvation, and deliverance of a minority, to win their favor. A large minority, and perhaps a majority, of men and women possess limited ability to moderate their dreams of sexual, material, and egoistic gratification. A small minority has exploited and sustained this immaturity with great success.
Yes, Christians, continue to call homosexuality a dysfunctional behavior, sin, what have you. Keep saying it loud and clear all the way up to the elections.
Inga writes:
"OMG! All those Jews who were killed n the Holocaust went to hell, Eric? Merciful God."
I don't suppose it matters when or where a person is killed (or dies). It isn't the manner or time of our death so much as our lives and what we do when we have it.
I don't know the first thing about the Jews during WWII except for what I've read in history books.
Were they Christian and did they accept Christ into their hearts?
The Bible and Christianity is pretty clear on this. Jesus says I am the way, the truth and the life, and there is no other way to Him but through me.
Paul (who is a Jew), writes that salvation comes first for the Jew and then for the Gentile.
"So all Christians believe that Jews, Buddhists and other non Christians will go to hell. Thanks for clarifying and speaking for all Christians."
It's easier to just say that everyone who isn't a Christian.
In it's simplest form, Christians believe that mankind is fallen. That we are all sins who fall short of the glory of God. That every single human being, with the except of Christ Himself, is guilty and the punishment is eternal damnation.
Every one. Guilty.
But God, in His loving mercy and grace, has given us a path to avoid eternal damnation. This was His son, Jesus.
This is the only avenue by which anyone on this Earth can avoid being separated from God.
If you reject Christ, you reject your own path to salvation.
Fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or Muslim is destructive, exclusionary and dangerous because they continue to try to legislate their personal belief system onto their fellow Americans.
Which of course, a secular progressive would never do. (cough) prohibition(cough)
Good lord. With Inga, I expect a total dingbat. But the Professor herself is so far off base here, regarding Christian thought. Reading her on Christian theology is like reading, " 2 plus 2 equals five, the Tooth Fairy is real , mc squared equals cat, and challenge yourself and tighten up your thinking."
Ann, I know you spend a lot of time with legal texts, but you wouldn't recognize Christian thought if it bit you on the ass.
You're a Flatlander.
Only if you aren't a Christian. Christians have read the Bible and remember the story of Job.
The name for a person who gets his medical advice from the Bible is "imbecile", not "Christian".
Jason, the poseur,
What makes you a better authority on Christian thought than Althouse?
If you reject Christ, you reject your own path to salvation
This works for Christians. But what about all of the rest of the people in the world?
When I was a little, nine years old, kid in Catholic Catechism classes, I had a big problem with the logic of this and had some pretty big arguments with the Nuns.
"How can people who have never heard of Jesus, like the people who live in Borneo or New Guinea, be doomed to "Hell"? They didn't have a chance. That isn't fair. What about all the people who were born and died BEFORE Jesus. Did they all go to Hell? What about those people who live in places like China and are good people and don't sin as defined by the Bible, even though they live good lives and didn't know about Christ, through no fault of their own....they go to Hell. I refuse to believe that God is so nit picky and would doom perfectly good people to Hell on a technicality."
I also had a hard time with the three in one concept. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. They could never answer my many questions on exactly how does this work.
The Nuns got real tired of me and my raised hand..... and told me to shut up and sit down. I eventually got kicked out after my First Communion.
BUT....just because "I" don't exactly get it or follow the faith strictly, doesn't mean that I can't understand that other people can have strong faith and be true in their own beliefs. It also doesn't mean that I don't understand and accept the definition of and consequences of sinful actions. Just like Robertson says....if you fuck around indiscriminately, expect to get some nasty genital diseases. He may believe that God is giving those as retribution. No one can deny however that his words are true. Fuck around and you will likely get an STD.
Unlike Inga and the other liberals, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and accept the honesty of Mr. Robertson's faith.
Excuse me DBQ, I don't believe I ever indicated that Roberston doesn't believe what he preaches. The scary part is HE DOES.
Shush, Inga. Grownups are talking.
Jason the poseur,
Please continue to display your extraordinary grasp of Christian thought, I'm waiting. Tell me how much more you understand Christian doctrine and the Bible than Althouse does, please do.
As a rule, one generally doesn't hear Catholics or mainline Protestants saying that if you don't accept Jesus that you are definitely going to Hell. Here's a useful line from the Catechism: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."
Low-church Evangelical Protestants, of course, like to claim that they are only real Christians, understand the mysterious will of God and that one will only go to Heaven if you accept Jesus in the same way they do. That's a big reason why thinking people avoid that version of Christianity and is probably why an ignoramus like Phil Robertson is drawn to it.
As a rule, one generally doesn't hear Catholics or mainline Protestants saying that if you don't accept Jesus that you are definitely going to Hell. Here's a useful line from the Catechism: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God
If you have heard of Christ, but do not accept him, you are going to hell. This phrase only refers to those who have never been exposed to Christ and his teachings.
DBQ said...
If you reject Christ, you reject your own path to salvation
This works for Christians. But what about all of the rest of the people in the world?
When I was a little, nine years old, kid in Catholic Catechism classes, I had a big problem with the logic of this and had some pretty big arguments with the Nuns.
_____________________________
The (updated?) Catechism of the Catholic Church does nuance on this big time. Here's what it says:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
somefeller and Gahrie -- I didn't see your posts before mine went up. Sorry for simply repeating you!
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."
My reaction, when I first heard that many years ago, was to think "so basically evangelists are the world's biggest assholes".
There are billions of people around the world living good lives without having heard the Gospel. People who, right now, are Heaven-bound.
Telling them about Jesus merely puts them at risk of going to hell, e.g. if they continue to be good people but reject Jesus in favor of their current faith.
On and on about disease and God here in the comments and nary a word about Robertson's obvious hatred of the queer gendered. Ducks only come in male and female varieties, eh? What an ignorant hick. Someone convene the Social Media Opprobrium Committee!
If you have heard of Christ, but do not accept him, you are going to hell. This phrase only refers to those who have never been exposed to Christ and his teachings.
Which is a pretty big exception, even if interpreted in the narrow way you suggest. An interpretation that I don't think you'll hear from most Catholic priests these days (including the current Pope) or mainline Protestant clergy. But the narrow interpretations appeal to a certain type, admittedly.
Or is that one of the Pop Morality laws that will be in force next Tuesday for a duration of two months? Are we allowed to eat at Chick-fil-a again or are those still hate sandwiches? Supporting civil unions is now evil, right? Has the buy local thing passed or is that still on? Can we still publicly shame people for raising an eyebrow if we breastfeed babies?
A daily email would be helpful.
Deathcab for Kony!
"I admire AA for immediately acknowledging her search for a way to attack the duckman through his book."
Bullshit. I was checking the work of the GQ writer by consulting PR's own presentation of his beliefs. Another innocent compliment unappreciated. I will never understand women.
While polarization has, perhaps, accelerated, it has reached nowhere near the efficiency it could. Each man (or woman <--- inserted for women with low reading comprehension skills who thought they weren't included) should register with a team. There is a Right team and a Left team. There will be none of this nonsense about not fitting in with one or the other team; every special snowflake must conform for the sake of efficiency. With team registration, one receives a list of approved media sources to be updated annually, a list of Good and Evil Popular Figures to be updated weekly via email, and a slotted Enemies Box. Each slot is labelled with a Mortal Social Sin, new labels to be mailed out as these change. When someone on the other team commits one of these, you write him off of humanity by writing his name on a paper and inserting it into the appropriate slot.
. An interpretation that I don't think you'll hear from most Catholic priests these days
Which goes a long way to explaining why I am no longer a Christian.
Well Garhrie, join a fundamentalist church, they would be happy to have you.
What about those who haven't heard of Christ? Those who came before Him, or those who, living now, haven't heard?
Well, the guidebook which Christians follow (Which, if they don't follow they Bible, one wonders why they are calling themselves Christian) states in Romans:
"19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
Further, it states of Abraham (Who came before Christ);
"o again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
"7Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”d 9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."
Here is the gist.
Christ is the means by which we all enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
We need not have heard of Christ in order for this to be true. Abraham never heard of Christ, but he trusted in God and his faith in God was reckoned to Him as righteousness.
Even those who have never heard of Christ, or the Gospel message, have the truth written on their hearts. They can be saved, through their faith, thanks to Christ.
Or they can reject the truth that was written on their hearts and throw it away for the lusts of the flesh. And in this, they shall have their just reward.
Well Garhrie, join a fundamentalist church, they would be happy to have you.
I spent 20 years searching for faith after i realized I was no longer Catholic. I even hung out with the Hare Krishnas a couple of times. Turns out I am a deist.
Althouse wrote:
Robertson is making a different claim, that health benefits represent the judgment or punishment or opinion-communicating of God. That's the part I'm questioning, because that is the questionable part!
Then you have to be asecularist. Why is that questionable coming from a christian. Or anyone believing in Karma even?
As you sow, so shall you reap. That applies to sexual activity, promiscuous behavior, but even to things like murder or burglary.
Christianity has the belief in consquences and judgements for your actions. As such, I don't see why someone wouldn't view diseases of promiscuity as there as reminders that such behavior is in fact sinful and/or has potential negative consequences.
IngaTell me how much more you understand Christian doctrine and the Bible than Althouse does, please do.
It would be lost on you.
Freeman Hunt wrote:
Or is that one of the Pop Morality laws that will be in force next Tuesday for a duration of two months? Are we allowed to eat at Chick-fil-a again or are those still hate sandwiches? Supporting civil unions is now evil, right? Has the buy local thing passed or is that still on? Can we still publicly shame people for raising an eyebrow if we breastfeed babies?
Very bandwagonesque, I must say.
Kind of like Obama being for traditional marriage until he was for gay marriage and then all the people are now bigots for not being for gay marriage.It is kind of hard to give up.
Twittering the latest talking points would be very helpful to those who aren't keeping up on liberal agit prop.
Inga wrote:
"Fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or Muslim is destructive, exclusionary and dangerous because they continue to try to legislate their personal belief system onto their fellow Americans."
And liberals dont?
Snicker.
And not even just liberals. What group isn't trying to legislate it's morality on the population at large? Why single out religious folks though?
I think I might have a problem with you and your compadres trying to legislate YOUR morality on me? Why is yours so much better?
tim in vermont wrote:
"I am not talking about the "God hates fags" people, I am talking about mainstream Christians."
For people like Inga, I wonder if there is a difference.
Inga wrote:
"Fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or Muslim is destructive, exclusionary and dangerous because they continue to try to legislate their personal belief system onto their fellow Americans."
Damn that Martin Luther King trying to foist his morality on us and make us live under it.
The "God is love" mantra for many means that there is no sin and no need to repent because God simply loves everything about us, and it's all mercy and grace (or hugs and kisses) forevermore. No need for repentance and forgiveness because it's all good.
Akin to the Lennon mind-set:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
etc.
"I am saying that the Bible is replete with instances of God using disease and illness to express his displeasure, and your apparent puzzlement over PR mentioning this says more about you than it does Christians in general or PR."
Oh, really? But you referred specifically to Job? And you were sarcastic about my knowledge of the Bible. You've dug yourself quite a hole. You want to say that God was inflicting ailments on Job as a way to show his displeasure with Job? And you want to pose as more expert on the Bible than others?!
I hope God isn't in the mood for smiting those who laugh at fools right now.
"According to the Mormon faith, those who voted for Romney will be saved and the others will spend the afterlife giving rim jobs to Harry Reid."
Everybody's talking about Job.
Tertullian, one of the early Church fathers, taught that one of the chief joys of the elect in heaven was watching the sufferings of the damned in hell. I could probably get into that for a few thousand years, but I have reservations about spending all eternity doing that. Nowadays many theologians would probably say that Tertullian's very concept of heaven is a mortal sin, but he's a Church Father and was well regarded in his time....We like to pretend that morality is immutable and self evident. That's far from the case. Sin varies from epoch to epoch and culture to culture. In many cases, sexis more a flywheel than a drive shaft of human behavior. Gandhi liked to give enemas to teen age girls. That doesn't add to his legend, but neither does it erase his good works. We make too much of a fuss about sexual sins..
It's poor theology in my book. If you seriously think that's how God communicates, you should explore the idea and challenge yourself with questions about who gets disease in this world. Children get cancer. To pick and choose the evidence that fits what you want to say anyway isn't good reasoning.
When you get on your "theology" jags you always sound like the newly-minted 15-year old atheist who's convinced he's the first person in history to puzzle his puzzler about theodicy.
It's silly. Why are you so earnestly concerned that some reality-show star doesn't manifest sophisticated and logically watertight expositions of his religious beliefs in a pop marketing-spin-off book?
Big deal. The majority of the population of believers in anything would contradict themselves, and often be stymied, if subjected to a professional pedagogic devil's advocate grilling, and that includes progressives, Christian or otherwise, who support gay marriage or any number of goodthink causes.
As the Amazon reviewer "A. Holmes" opines, "This book was very easy to read". Perhaps A. Althouse should log in there and confirm to potential readers who might be otherwise misled that "Mr. Duck is no Aquinas!"
nn - Well, if you want to argue the Christian view, all mankind has limited ability to moderate their desires. That is why Paul claims that the law does not save by itself, and according to the New Testament, he got James and Peter to concur on that.
The whole idea of grace is that we need help to allow the law to fulfill its purpose to guard us from harm, because we are all sinners.
The idea that any particular faith or creed (whether political or religious) can produce an earthly utopia of the elect has failed miserably each time it's been tried. We should all try to engage with that truth.
Totalitarianism kills, and totalitarianism of ideology = mass murder in human history.
This is why I think that the US constitutional protections for conscience bear good fruits. It is written into our constitution that people must be free to pursue their particular aspirational visions.
The corollary to that basic civil law is that our society will always be somewhat offensive to those who have chosen a particular path of conscience. I prefer that to the burnings at the stake, the murder camps, and the mountains of skulls that that recur throughout human history.
If mountains of skulls are success, then I say that we want to avoid success!
Inga wrote:
"Fundamentalism, whether it be Christian or Muslim is destructive, exclusionary and dangerous because they continue to try to legislate their personal belief system onto their fellow Americans."
And yet it is the secular/leftist totalitarianism of the last 100 years that cost over 100 million (at least) purposely murdered and starved to death.
Strange that.
MaxedOutMama:
I'm not arguing the "Christian view". I am simply noting personal and reported observations. The "limited" in limited ability refers to an average behavior exhibited by a large minority or even a majority.
I am arguing that Democrats have been largely successful in exploiting this base or primitive behavior, and that the party is largely represented by the people who benefited from this exploitation.
"Sex ... pollutes the world with babies, which is arguably worse."
Still haven't found the courage to do something about your own case? Pathetic...
You want to say that God was inflicting ailments on Job as a way to show his displeasure with Job?
No. I want to say that God routinely inflicts ailments on humans to express himself.
No. I want to say that God routinely inflicts ailments on humans to express himself.
Deism, as promulgated by Gahrie.
No. I want to say that God routinely inflicts ailments on humans to express himself.
Deism, as promulgated by Gahrie.
Nope Christianity, which is the topic...do try to keep up.
As a diest, I believe our creator would neither know nor care about my actions, or have any desire to change or direct them.
But we were talking about Christianity, not deism.
nn - I'd say it's a majority. We humans do have limited control over our instinctive impulses, whether it's the instinct to eat, procreate, store up wealth for the hard times or whatever.
I'm not sure that either primary party has a lock on exploiting the instinctive. Certainly the Dems do it, but doesn't the GOP?
I do think the left is currently a bit better at catering to those who want to wallow in self-righteousness, which can never be healthy.
I also do think that homosexuals are being exploited somewhat as a way to implicitly excuse the majority's failings. And as homosexuals have become more mainstream, then the excuse factory has branched out into the even more minority groups, such as "transgenders" who haven't transgendered using the other sex's bathrooms, or the normalization of incest, etc.
The restless need to destroy all norms of social responsibility seems to originate in the guilty consciences of the majority rather than the minority.
I can see why many heterosexuals would get into the habit of pursuing "social justice" for the minority as an implicit excuse for escaping reproach for the fact that they aren't treating their own sexual partners or children very well.
I once was involved in a similar discussion in another venue.
In that discussion, a Jew said that Jewish theology teaches that when you die you are dead. You neither go to Heaven or Hell.
Anyone here Jewish and know if this is theologically sound or not? It didn't seem so to me from my readings of the OT but Jewish theology is not one of my areas of expertise.
Any Jews here that know if this is true one way or the other?
John Henry
I can see why many heterosexuals would get into the habit of pursuing "social justice" for the minority as an implicit excuse for escaping reproach for the fact that they aren't treating their own sexual partners or children very well.
That or because they are people who don't believe that "the minority" deserves oppression or vilification. I know that may be hard for someone like you to understand, but facts are stubborn things. Plus, from what I've seen, the sort of people who pursue social justice treat their partners and children pretty well. Better than the likes of you, that's for sure.
Milwaukee German Full Gospel Church on the corner of 36th and Rohr. The church is presently located in Brookfield WI. So are you skeptical of my point or my assertion that I grew up in a Pentecostal church? Or that this was preached in that church?
I do recall the furor over the MGFGC Armed Forces engaging in the great Homo Round-Up of 1981 and the utter annihilation of a rebel faction of Shintoists just a few blocks from County Stadium in 1977.
Were you a part of the White Color Guard? Or the Jew Haters Legion — you know, the kids who ran around with upside-down Stars of David on their blazers who would kick bankers in their shins and spit on the local haberdasher's steps?
Oh wait, no you were a young girl — definitely a part of the AMWA (Anti Mick/Wop Association) — spending your Sundays in church basement building pipe bombs to use on pizza parlors, and as lookouts for the snipers constantly assaulting the Marquette campus. (Can't trust them heathen Jesuits, you know!)
(It's almost like you give fundamentalists too much credit for having their shit together. )
"I bought the book (on Kindle) because I wanted to be able to search the text, and the first thing I searched for was "homosexual" and "gay""
But did you search for the word "nig" on his pajamas?
"Interestingly, homosexuality doesn't even seem to be on Robertson's radar, since a same-sex couple, beginning disease-free and keeping monogamous, would enjoy the same health benefit."
Didn't Robertson diss a certain form of sexual contact that carries a risk of hepatitis that exists even if one has only a single sex partner?
rhhardin,
"No [Muslim] Reformation yet."
If only!
"I do recall the furor over the MGFGC Armed Forces engaging in the great Homo Round-Up of 1981 and the utter annihilation of a rebel faction of Shintoists just a few blocks from County Stadium in 1977"
Hmmmm, has anyone ever seen EMD and Iowahawk together at the same time? :-)
Inga wrote:
It's actually a very good thing, this Robertson kerfluffle. It has truly shown borderline conservative homosexuals what the right thinks of their freedom to love who they are naturally drawn to. For so called Christians to refer to this attraction by homosexuals to their own sex as " base" says a lot.
What if christians were saying this about loose women (or men) who were heterosexuals? Or what if they were saying this about grown adults wanting to diddle prepubescent kids. Is it wrong to call such desires "base"?
So basically the only real thing that determines the bigot from the non bigot in your mind is do you agree with the sentiment.
I.e. if you are against NAMBLA then of course its not bigoted to call those in NAMBLA sick and twisted. And thus the Roberts of the world would get a pass on THAT bigotry, since of course you agree that its sick and twisted.
How convenient for you to always be on the right side of the issue and judge those who are on the wrong side, based simply on your own standard.
somefeller's wrote:
That or because they are people who don't believe that "the minority" deserves oppression or vilification. I know that may be hard for someone like you to understand, but facts are stubborn things
So you're standing with NAMBLA right?
Howard projects: A self proclaimed "commander" of an army battling an enemy that cannot shoot or fight back.
Well, the name Duck Commander came about when he tested an early version of his duck call. It worked so well that a friend hunting with him said, "Man you didn't CALL those ducks. You COMMANDED them!"
Not sure what army you think he is or isn't leading. But I can tell you how the name came to be.
Inga said, "Full gospel evangelical church, the one true church, the way, the only way. Catholics and even Lutherans and especially Jews and certainly Hindus, Buddhists and other heathens and pagans are doomed. Homosexuals will be doomed and smitten by disease here on this earth. They get to feel hell before they die.
Something taught to me growing up in a full gospel evangelical Pentacostal church...
Well I just added in that bit about homosexuals for good measure, but the rest is true."
So (1) you were NOT taught to hate homos in church, (2) you admit you have to lie to make evangelicals sound worse then they really are, and (3) you still can't spell "Pentecostal."
Post a Comment