• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A&E Taking Heat For Suspending 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson

Those Catholics in Rome are all Christians.


True, but Catholic Christians tend to be much more "hard core" in God's law and all that the Protestant Christians.

You sure about that?

Obama beat Romney 50-48 among Catholics (basically the same as for the nation as a whole, pretty much what happened in 2008 as well), while losing 57-42 among Protestants. Surely it would seem to follow that as Republicans are less likely to support trans rights their voters would be as well.

Or am I missing something?

Romney was Mormon/LDS a branch of Christianity that many people do not agree with and have multiple problems with.

Que? In a thread originally about Phil Robertson - definitely not a Catholic - quacking about God's law?

My argument is that the current Pope has shown more leniency and "respect" for homosexual (or in the case of the article I posted, transgendered) people than Phil Robertson has. Which should speak a lot considering Catholics tend to be a bit more hard-core, balls-to-the-wall, about God's laws/rules (they don't believe that you've forgiveness for all your sins and must ask for them and repent) than Protestant Christians tend to have. (Christianity saying that you have forgiveness for all your sins and that you need not apologize or repent for them. You must only believe in God and Jesus.)

So, Robertson (a Protestant Christian) has shown less tolerance for a lifestyle he does not agree with than the Pope (the head of the Catholic Church.)
 
Last edited:
...Which should speak a lot considering Catholics tend to be a bit more hard-core, balls-to-the-wall, about God's laws/rules (they don't believe that you've forgiveness for all your sins and must ask for them and repent) than Protestant Christians tend to have. (Christianity saying that you have forgiveness for all your sins and that you need not apologize or repent for them. You must only believe in God and Jesus.)

That is incorrect. Repentance is a defining doctrine of Protestants.
 
True, but Catholic Christians tend to be much more "hard core" in God's law and all that the Protestant Christians.

You sure about that?

Obama beat Romney 50-48 among Catholics (basically the same as for the nation as a whole, pretty much what happened in 2008 as well), while losing 57-42 among Protestants. Surely it would seem to follow that as Republicans are less likely to support trans rights their voters would be as well.

Or am I missing something?

Romney was Mormon/LDS a branch of Christianity that many people do not agree with and have multiple problems with.

Que? In a thread originally about Phil Robertson - definitely not a Catholic - quacking about God's law?

My argument is that the current Pope has shown more leniency and "respect" for homosexual (or in the case of the article I posted, transgendered) people than Phil Robertson has. Which should speak a lot considering Catholics tend to be a bit more hard-core, balls-to-the-wall, about God's laws/rules (they don't believe that you've forgiveness for all your sins and must ask for them and repent) than Protestant Christians tend to have. (Christianity saying that you have forgiveness for all your sins and that you need not apologize or repent for them. You must only believe in God and Jesus.)

So, Robertson (a Protestant Christian) has shown less tolerance for a lifestyle he does not agree with than the Pope (the head of the Catholic Church.)


You're wrong here.

Firstly, on that Romney is a Mormon thing? Click on the link I provided. Gore won Catholics and lost Protestants. Kerry lost both groups, though Protestants by more, despite being Catholoc himself. And Obama won Catholics and lost Protestants both times.

Secondly, American Catholics are certainly more socially liberal than American Protestants.

So, what are you on about here?
 
You sure about that?

Obama beat Romney 50-48 among Catholics (basically the same as for the nation as a whole, pretty much what happened in 2008 as well), while losing 57-42 among Protestants. Surely it would seem to follow that as Republicans are less likely to support trans rights their voters would be as well.

Or am I missing something?

Romney was Mormon/LDS a branch of Christianity that many people do not agree with and have multiple problems with.

Que? In a thread originally about Phil Robertson - definitely not a Catholic - quacking about God's law?

My argument is that the current Pope has shown more leniency and "respect" for homosexual (or in the case of the article I posted, transgendered) people than Phil Robertson has. Which should speak a lot considering Catholics tend to be a bit more hard-core, balls-to-the-wall, about God's laws/rules (they don't believe that you've forgiveness for all your sins and must ask for them and repent) than Protestant Christians tend to have. (Christianity saying that you have forgiveness for all your sins and that you need not apologize or repent for them. You must only believe in God and Jesus.)

So, Robertson (a Protestant Christian) has shown less tolerance for a lifestyle he does not agree with than the Pope (the head of the Catholic Church.)


You're wrong here.

Firstly, on that Romney is a Mormon thing? Click on the link I provided. Gore won Catholics and lost Protestants. Kerry lost both groups, though Protestants by more, despite being Catholoc himself. And Obama won Catholics and lost Protestants both times.

Secondly, American Catholics are certainly more socially liberal than American Protestants.

So, what are you on about here?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I was just expressing my views and interpretations of things. Personally, I pretty much see all people of all religions as pretty much closed-minded and unable to accept people who may differ, even slightly, from the "norm" of their practicing religion. My best friend is a Mormon, great guy as never tried to indoctrinate me and very open minded. (Though he's drifted from his religion quite a bit.) But may people I know who are Christians bash on the LDS faith saying they're a "cult" and do not "truly practice the way of Jesus and God."

My end point being, however, that the Pope has shown more open mindedness to the homosexual community that most Christians do, including Robertson, and he's of an order that says you have to ask forgiveness for your since and do something to make up for them. Generally, Christians say you're already forgiven.

Though I'm not sure what "flavor" of Christian Robertson is, if I had to guess I'd say Baptist which, again in my experience, are much more balls-to-the-wall when it comes to sin.
 
My argument is that the current Pope has shown more leniency and "respect" for homosexual (or in the case of the article I posted, transgendered) people than Phil Robertson has. Which should speak a lot considering Catholics tend to be a bit more hard-core, balls-to-the-wall, about God's laws/rules (they don't believe that you've forgiveness for all your sins and must ask for them and repent) than Protestant Christians tend to have. (Christianity saying that you have forgiveness for all your sins and that you need not apologize or repent for them. You must only believe in God and Jesus.)

Yes, Pope Francis has shown more respect for homosexual and transgendered people. That much is correct.

But like Indy said, American Catholics are generally more socially liberal than (many) American Protestants. Sure you've got Lutherans and Episcopalians, but the Southern Baptists? The Churches of Christ and of God and the Pentecostals?

And the idea that Protestant Christianity (there you go again using "Christianity" to exclude Catholicism) doesn't say anything about requiring repentance is, um... interesting.

Personally, I pretty much see all people of all religions as pretty much closed-minded and unable to accept people who may differ, even slightly, from the "norm" of their practicing religion.

This is just silly.
 
And the idea that Protestant Christianity (there you go again using "Christianity" to exclude Catholicism) doesn't say anything about requiring repentance is, um... interesting.

I guess I'm not making it clear on how I view things, I know Protestants have repentance but it's less... "drilled in" than it is with Catholics? Catholics sin and they have to confess and then do something to "make up" for it. Say prayers, light candles, whatever. A Protestant sins and he asks for forgiveness directly or just has to realize he's sinning. As I understand it Jesus died for our sins and we're supposed to respect that and realize it but at the same time sin is forgiven because no one can live without sinning. Best we can do is try not to sin and feel "bad" about or sins.

As for excluding Catholics from Christianity, I realize they're the same religion but at the same time I see them practiced very differently to the point, for me at least, them almost being different religions. Catholics follow the Pope, pray to God through saints and idols, seek direct forgiveness for their sins, etc. Christians pray directly to God/Jesus, don't follow the pope, and feel their sins are already forgiven by Jesus dying on the cross.

Catholics "break" the Second Commandment as seen by Christians (Protestants) by praying to idols. In fact, IIRC, Catholics follow a different list of Commandments to "get away with" following other idols.

I realize Protestants, Catholics, Baptists and others are all the same religion (Christianity) but, at the same time, they all pretty much practice the same religion in different ways. And often just simply call Protestants "Christians" out of bad-habit/laziness and just my personal view on things.

Really, I think we as a species need to give up on the whole "God"/"Gods" thing because I think it causes more trouble than it's worth. If you need a being that may or may not exist to tell you to not kill other people and to be a good person then you have deeper problems. Then there's cases like with Phil Robertson where his religious following makes him say things against entire groups of people. Hell, religion has been used to constrain, control and dominate groups of people for centuries. Slavery, denying inter-racial marriage and controlling of women was all done in the name of The Bible.

Religion is a mess and, really, I think it causes more problems than it solves or prevents. It holds us back as a people. The biggest hurdle we're struggling with right now, equal-rights and protection of homosexuals, is being stymied because of the Religious Right who want to define marriage and love with how The Bible does.

Me? As someone who doesn't practice any religion, doesn't really follow The Bible? I think I'm more advanced than people who DO follow The Bible because I think we should treat all people the same no matter what. Are homosexuals living in sin? Perhaps they are. But I don't think we should judge them, punish them or control them on Earth for it. Let them live their lives how they see fit and The Constitution, laws and rights should not be made based on a religious text.

If homosexuals really are an offense to God, and their sin really is something that cannot be forgiven or their living in sin, knowing it's a sin, regardless of their Belief in Jesus in God is too much for God to accept then let Him deal with it in the end. Really, who are we to judge if they want to sin?

And, again, God sees all sin as the same. Why is homosexuality the one so many want to focus on? There's quite a bit of other things God doesn't like even in The New Testament that people do all of the time. Why are they not speaking out against that? Where are the wacko-sects of "Christians" protesting businesses that stay open on Sundays? Why isn't there a mass movement to put an asterisk in the First Amendment that says that "Goddammit" and other blasphemous phrases cannot be said?

Why is homosexuality the one so many want to focus on?

Because some people find it icky. It's got nothing to do with God, The Bible, Jesus or any of that. That's the excuse, that's the drum they can beat to justify their bigotry. Just like all other forms of bigotry and control of groups throughout history. It's "icky" that blacks and whites marry/love one another, it's "not right" that women have rights, and the Bible "proves" that God doesn't like it either. I'm justified! That's all there is to it. People find it icky and The Bible is their excuse to hide behind on why they're right in their beliefs.

Growing up, my mom really wanted me to read The Bible because she felt with my intelligence I could really understand it and could've been a great "scholar" of sorts with The Bible and understand it better than her and possibly as well as/better than her Pastor. In fact, I'm pretty sure she wanted me to BE a Pastor. Which, hey, the church she goes to pays the head Pastor there pretty damn well. So it could have been lucrative.

Dealing with a deep depression in my teenage years I never took much interest in The Bible and struggled to read it (King James version, I sort of had trouble with the older English in it.)

But what I've read of The Bible, what I know is in it (again even in the New Testament) and what I've actually seen and experienced on what it does to people. No thanks. I think it closes people's minds and puts them in this narrow path of thinking that *everyone* must be absolutely perfect and as Godly as possible to be accepted. My mother absolutely *refuses* to accept gay people as being "equals" and as people who'll get into Heaven. My mother is a lovely woman, I love her as much as a good son should love his mother.

But she's had her mind closed and trapped by this book so many put their faith into. Everyone must be the personification and living embodiment of Jesus to be accepted. Sure, we can allow some sins but, apparently there's some sins one just cannot accept.

I don't want my mind closed by The Bible into a narrow way of thinking and thinking only certain people are "good" because of how they live their lives. Honestly, I think I'm more Christ-like without having read The Bible than I would be if I had. Because I accept everyone for who they are and do not judge people based on who they love, the color of their skin or even what belief system they have.

I'm open minded on what people want to believe, I personally don't have strong beliefs in The Bible, Jesus, or God and as I get older the more I think it's hocus-pocus people want to follow and that we're better off without it but if people want to believe in it and follow it they're welcome to and I think no different of them. I see Athirst, Christians, Jews, Islamics as all the same. I'm not the one who gets to judge people on their beliefs or how they live their lives.

If there IS a God then only He gets to judge and decide who is worthy of entry in to Paradise. How about the rest of us just live our lives as best as we can, not pass judgment and let God sort it all out?
 
It's like all the anti-Catholic propaganda rolled up into one long post. Just a few highlights:

As for excluding Catholics from Christianity, I realize they're the same religion but at the same time I see them practiced very differently to the point, for me at least, them almost being different religions. Catholics follow the Pope, pray to God through saints and idols, seek direct forgiveness for their sins, etc. Christians pray directly to God/Jesus, don't follow the pope, and feel their sins are already forgiven by Jesus dying on the cross.

What you're talking about in the bolded part - without going into too much detail - has to do with Justification, which is indeed a deep doctrinal division between Catholics and Protestants. But there's also deep division on it between different branches of Protestantism (and that's not even getting into the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox). Even so, both of the bolded parts apply to Protestants and - I believe - Catholics as well.

The whole thing about the veneration of saints... properly, it's not prayer through saints, but asking for intercession as you would ask a living person. It's not like Catholics don't pray directly to God. Catholics follow the Pope to the same extent as some evangelical Protestants follow the more charismatic and influential preachers.

None of these actually make for different religions though.

Catholics "break" the Second Commandment as seen by Christians (Protestants) by praying to idols. In fact, IIRC, Catholics follow a different list of Commandments to "get away with" following other idols.

Whaaaat? :wtf: No seriously.... what? This is just goofy nonsense.

The biggest hurdle we're struggling with right now... is being stymied because of the Religious Right who want to define marriage and love with how The Bible does.

Where are the wacko-sects of "Christians" protesting businesses that stay open on Sundays? Why isn't there a mass movement to put an asterisk in the First Amendment that says that "Goddammit" and other blasphemous phrases cannot be said?

Well, for a very selective reading of "defining marriage how the Bible does." Still haven't heard them calling for multiple partners or expect widows to marry their brothers-in-law...

Have you heard of blue laws? The fight over stores being open on Sunday has already happened. And the whole taking God's name in vain thing better applies to the Religious Right anyway... not that they'd see it.
 
Catholics "break" the Second Commandment as seen by Christians (Protestants) by praying to idols. In fact, IIRC, Catholics follow a different list of Commandments to "get away with" following other idols.

Whaaaat? :wtf: No seriously.... what? This is just goofy nonsense.

IIRC the Catholic "version" of the 10 Commandments has kind of folded the 1st and 2nd one together and they've made some excuses on praying to idols as being okay and the First (or second) Commandment is regarding other "graven images" and idols. But not talking about the crucifix, statues of saints, saints themselves, etc. Then they've kind-of split the 10th commandment into two.

The 10 Commandments as listed in The Bible have the First one being No Other Gods, the Second one being No Graven Images. (Third: Using Lord's Name in Vain, Fourth: Honoring the Sabbath, Fifth: Honoring your Mother and Father, Sixth: Do Not Kill, Seventh: Do Not Commit Adultery, Eighth: Do Not Steal, 9: Do Not Lie, 10: Do not Covet.)

For the record, I'm not "anti-Catholic", I'm pretty much anti all religions. ;) I just have my own opinions and interpretations on things.

Have you heard of blue laws? The fight over stores being open on Sunday has already happened. And the whole taking God's name in vain thing better applies to the Religious Right anyway... not that they'd see it.

I live in Kansas, believe me, I'm well aware of "blue laws." I still don't see quite the hyperbole and vocalism from people on stores being open on Sundays or other fracturing of the commandments or rules set-out in The Bible as people are when it comes to the practice of homosexuality.

Homosexual Rights is a country-wide, nay, world-wide fight in equality. Particularly in the US God and The Bible are often cited as reasons it should not be allowed. ("Marriage as defined in The Bible." and all that.) Again, since God sees all sin as the same it's odd that homosexuality is the focus people have their sights on rather than all of the other things that are allowed that are sins in The Bible. Why all of the focus on homosexuality? Because Bible-Thumpers are assholes.

And, again, in my personal view Catholicism and Protestantism may be the same religion (Christianity) but they both practice it in different ways. I often mis-speak and call Protestants simply "Christians" since the latter is probably a more familiar term or simple ignorance on my part.

When it comes to The Pope, I don't think it's quite equitable to relate him to a local pastor. Since The Pope is the head of Catholics and, if I understand correctly, can make "changes" to how the religion is practiced. (In fact, I believe an ancient pope is responsible for the different take on the 10 Commandments allowing for graven images.) Protestants tend to me more strictly "by the book" saying no one gets to change it or re-interpret it.

In fact, I believe there's been many cases over the centuries of various Popes re-interpreting The Bible or making concessions in it to fit modern views.

Again, I plead ignorance on much of this and a lot of it just based on personal experiences, views, and interpretations.

And, again, I think all religion is silly and needs to be done away with.
 
The 10 Commandments as listed in The Bible have the First one being No Other Gods, the Second one being No Graven Images. (Third: Using Lord's Name in Vain, Fourth: Honoring the Sabbath, Fifth: Honoring your Mother and Father, Sixth: Do Not Kill, Seventh: Do Not Commit Adultery, Eighth: Do Not Steal, 9: Do Not Lie, 10: Do not Covet.)

That's pretty ignorant.

Exodus 20:1-17

Deuteronomy 5:4-21

Perhaps you know of a generally accepted translation of the Bible in which the Commandments are explicitly numbered?
 
Again, I plead ignorance on much of this...

It's an awful lot of words spent to get down to that point. ;)

I was never a great Catholic, but I've known many people who were, and were also amazing human beings. And your take on Catholicism is completely off. But that's probably a topic for a different thread, no?

Regardless of all that, your original point was about Catholics being uber-Conservative on social issues. And for the majority of American Catholics that's certainly not the case.
 
The 10 Commandments as listed in The Bible have the First one being No Other Gods, the Second one being No Graven Images. (Third: Using Lord's Name in Vain, Fourth: Honoring the Sabbath, Fifth: Honoring your Mother and Father, Sixth: Do Not Kill, Seventh: Do Not Commit Adultery, Eighth: Do Not Steal, 9: Do Not Lie, 10: Do not Covet.)

That's pretty ignorant.

Exodus 20:1-17

Deuteronomy 5:4-21

Perhaps you know of a generally accepted translation of the Bible in which the Commandments are explicitly numbered?

To elaborate on this, look here.

There's at least 7 widely-used ways in Judaism and Christianity to number the Ten Commandments drawing from both Exodus and Deuteronomy. The Catholic Catechism pretty much follows Augustine, whose numbering was heavily based on the Jewish Talmud. Two of them are distinctly Protestant, but the Lutheran method is very similar to Augustine. Calvin's methodology recombines the "coveting" sayings and re-separates the prohibitions against worshiping other gods and idolatry, much like the Septuagint.

So while the numbering you go with (and which I'm most familiar with too) is perfectly valid, it's not the only one - and it's not just Catholics who go with something different.

Again, I plead ignorance on much of this...

It's an awful lot of words spent to get down to that point. ;)

Indeed. :lol:
 
Again, I plead ignorance on much of this...

It's an awful lot of words spent to get down to that point. ;)

Indeed. :lol:
It would be best if he stopped trying to talk about Catholics. As for the idols, Catholics don't pray to any idols. Saints are venerated, not worshiped. Since they're in good with the Lord, folks will ask them to talk to the big cheese on their behalf. The statues have no worth in themselves, and they are not worshiped in any form.
 
The 10 Commandments as listed in The Bible have the First one being No Other Gods, the Second one being No Graven Images. (Third: Using Lord's Name in Vain, Fourth: Honoring the Sabbath, Fifth: Honoring your Mother and Father, Sixth: Do Not Kill, Seventh: Do Not Commit Adultery, Eighth: Do Not Steal, 9: Do Not Lie, 10: Do not Covet.)

That's pretty ignorant.

Exodus 20:1-17

Deuteronomy 5:4-21

Perhaps you know of a generally accepted translation of the Bible in which the Commandments are explicitly numbered?
Still, just another thing the different denominations can't agree on...
And there are so many denominations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
 
It's an awful lot of words spent to get down to that point. ;)

Indeed. :lol:
It would be best if he stopped trying to talk about Catholics. As for the idols, Catholics don't pray to any idols. Saints are venerated, not worshiped. Since they're in good with the Lord, folks will ask them to talk to the big cheese on their behalf. The statues have no worth in themselves, and they are not worshiped in any form.
So it comes down to knowing a guy who knows a guy? ;)
 
They've been pushing the show on one of the channels here, with an advert for it in every single commercial break at some points of the day.

Apparently Sky doesn't go in for standing up for...anything.
 
Clearly there is a god and it thinks this jackass is a fucking bigot....

http://tvline.com/2014/01/16/duck-dynasty-season-5-ratings-premiere/

However 8 million people are still morons. :lol:

Apparently, however, that figure still "eclipsed the numbers from the end of season 4."

In other words, the ratings hit an all time high at the beginning of last season, declined during the rest of that season, and are now (at least temporarily) heading back up.

So, god doesn't seem to be particularly pissed at Phil.

And, right or wrong, that eight million figure still means its more popular than most of the rest of the shows that people here -including myself-enjoy.
 
Duck Dynasty gets better numbers than Enterprise did for almost the entire history of it's four-season run on a free broadcast network you didn't need a subscription to anything to see. That these artificially-created rednecks get more eyeballs than a first-run Star Trek series speaks volumes about how many easily-entertained people there are in this country (and how damn mediocre UPN was).
 
I thought Catholics split coveting into two separate commandments (Thy neighbor's wife, anything thy neighbor owns), and Protestants split worship no other God into two separate commandments (I am the lord thy god worship no other god than me, false idols). Of course I'm only going by Wikipedia and Decalogue.

The problem isn't religion, the problem is religious people who think they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people with threat of violence and legal action. We don't need to get rid of religion, we just need to get religious people to accept that other people are entitled to have their own morality so long as they aren't hurting anyone. (Separation between personal morality and legal morality).

And of course they needed to take stuff in the Bible in the context of the full Bible. Like, don't worry to much about single lines in Leviticus when you can't even get 'Love thy neighbor' right.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top