Duck Dynasty: TV pastor points out demonic nature of homosexuality, liberals foam at mouth..

[Rice N Beans]

Was nice seeing OP get shytted on the first few pages.

 

[godkiller]

White Lady for Jesse Lee Patterson

 

[Elle Driver]

This is how a lot of whites justify the disgusting history of this country though. "Slavery wasn't that bad, I mean the blacks were happy, I didn't hear one complaint". Motherfukker, it's cause they were scared cause y'all were lynching them, burning them alive, dragging them, hosing them down, beating them so why exactly would they act like they were anything but happy around another cracker?

 

[nineteeneightysix]

There is NOTHING wrong with being racist and anti-gay...As long as you are acting violently or promoting violence against other groups of people...Women, blacks and gays can have their civil rights, but people should ALSO have the right to express their ideas about these groups and others, without being lynched for it...

It is FREEDOM of speech...

If Chris Rock, Russell Peters or David Chappelle stood on the stage and said those kinds of things, most people would just laugh it off as jokes...Basically, we allow people do as racist and prejudiced as they want to be as long as they say "it's a joke"...

Why is it ok for a man or woman to say "I don't date white/black people" on their POF, Backpage and Facebook...?

What can be MORE racist than saying I am not attracted to people of a certain skin colour, what can be MORE racist than saying I don't want to have sex with a person of certain colour...?

When people say silly things like this, everybody wants to use that stupid "everybody has their preferences excuse"...

But if you say, "I don't want to be neighbours with blacks/whites" then people want to lynch you...

Humans are so GODDAMN stupid at times...

 

[The Real]

You're actually wrong since eating shellfish was 'unclean' while homosexuality was an 'abomination' which is seen when reading the verses in Hebrew:
​

One is a 'sin' while the other is not.
​

But there's also this, which opens Deuteronomy's section on clean and unclean animals, in 14:3, which later goes on specifically to talk about shellfish, too:

"Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing"

It seems like those two were meant to be synonyms, since "abominable thing" refers specifically to anything that shouldn't be eaten, which the section goes on to specify in 14:9-10 with "These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you."


And to further the point about all abominations, look at Proverbs 6:16-19:

"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

It doesn't seem like there are grounds for saying that shellfish aren't classed along with gay sex, shedding innocent blood, etc, assuming we are reading the Bible as internally consistent, as a Christian would.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

But there's also this, which opens Deuteronomy's section on clean and unclean animals, in 14:3, which later goes on specifically to talk about shellfish, too:

"Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing"

It seems like those two were meant to be synonyms, since "abominable thing" refers specifically to anything that shouldn't be eaten, which the section goes on to specify in 14:9-10 with "These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you."

Not exactly synonyms in the sense you mean. 'Toebah' refers to abominations that are against the Creator's will, i.e., 'sins'. 'Shekets', on the other hand, refers to things that would defile Hebrews and make them 'unclean' for ceremonies since they were supposed to be 'holy'. Defilement of 'holy' things renders them 'profane' which can be absolved through rituals while committing a 'sin' can only be absolved through 'grace'. The best way to look at them would be in degrees of loathing with 'toebah' being the absolute worst and 'shekets' being bad, but correctable.​

It doesn't seem like there are grounds for saying that shellfish aren't classed along with gay sex, shedding innocent blood, etc, assuming we are reading the Bible as internally consistent, as a Christian would.

Shellfish AREN'T classified along with homosexuality, shedding innocent blood, etc., as shown by reading the text in Hebrew. This makes the text internally consistent and it seems atheists/anti-theists don't read Hebrew in order to make that distinction so, therefore, think they are equivalent.

Most Christians don't even bother with the OT since they believe most of it doesn't apply to them anyway and they'd be correct in this case, although it's through ignorance rather than textual criticism.​

 

[The Real]

Not exactly synonyms in the sense you mean. 'Toebah' refers to abominations that are against the Creator's will, i.e., 'sins'. 'Shekets', on the other hand, refers to things that would defile Hebrews and make them 'unclean' for ceremonies since they were supposed to be 'holy'. Defilement of 'holy' things renders them 'profane' which can be absolved through rituals while committing a 'sin' can only be absolved through 'grace'. The best way to look at them would be in degrees of loathing with 'toebah' being the absolute worst and 'shekets' being bad, but correctable.​

Shellfish AREN'T classified along with homosexuality, shedding innocent blood, etc., as shown by reading the text in Hebrew. This makes the text internally consistent and it seems atheists/anti-theists don't read Hebrew in order to make that distinction so, therefore, think they are equivalent.

Most Christians don't even bother since they believe most of it doesn't apply to them anyway and they'd be correct in this case, although it's through ignorance rather than textual criticism.​

But in the Deut passage alone, both "abomination" and "unclean" are used synonymously. The section opens by classifying foods into "abominable" and permitted, and then, in the passage about seafood, uses the term "unclean" as part of its divide between edible and inedible creatures.

In Leviticus 11:10, toebah is applicable again specifically for shellfish, if they are synonymous, as in Duet, and that's how it's translated in most English versions:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." "

The other translations I've seen use synonymous words, like "abhorrent" or "detestable" as opposed to unclean, as used in the beginning of Deuteronomy. Is shekets the word used there, too?

 

[Danie84]

Everybody so caught up with what the bigot said about that Gays, yet completely ignore his declaration of us being better off pre-Civil Rights: yeah, we really looked forward to hangings and got a blast out of water hose

 

[Danie84]

I bet he was the main one yelling "...we gonna have ourselves a hanging tonight"

 

[J-Fire]

all that sh1t on a&e, history channel. all those "reality" shows are fake. the storage war, fake. bar rescue, fake. all of them. detroit pawn show, fake. every single one of them are fake. with actors and plants.
not surprised this show is fake.

pawn stars can't be fake! i think ChumLee really is clueless half the time...and the old man is really an a$$hole, lol.

 

[HellRell804]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Have any of you actually considered we may have actually been happier pre civil rights and integration? Im sick of the gay agenda trying to rope black people in and i'm smelling the same tactic here. We were surrounded by our own kind. We could have mitigated or removed the damage white supremacy has done to our psyche over the years. Sure we didn't have the best conditions but black people have been turning sugar into shyt for centuries. There is no doubt in my mind that we would have improved our condition and created a superior culture. But I know a lot of you cats can't fathom living in a world without pawgs and the all powerful massa. A lack of knowledge has truly destroyed our people...

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

But in the Deut passage alone, both "abomination" and "unclean" are used synonymously. The section opens by classifying foods into "abominable" and permitted, and then, in the passage about seafood, uses the term "unclean" as part of its divide between edible and inedible creatures.

In Leviticus 11:10, toebah is applicable again specifically for shellfish, if they are synonymous, as in Duet, and that's how it's translated in most English versions:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." "

The other translations I've seen use synonymous words, like "abhorrent" or "detestable" as opposed to unclean, as used in the beginning of Deuteronomy. Is shekets the word used there, too?

Deut. 14:3 uses 'toebah', but in a 'ritual' sense, not 'ethical'. Using 'detestable', or 'loathsome' as opposed to 'abomination' would be well within the author's intent and is seen when reading the text in the proper context. This means without presuppositions imposed by Darwinism, the Protestant Reformation, the Nicean Council, Augustine, Luther, etc.

These are 'acceptable' translations for both words AFAIK:

Toebah = abominable, abominable act, abomination, abominations, detestable, detestable act, detestable thing, detestable things, loathsome, object of loathing

Shekets = abhorrent, detestable, detestable thing, detestable things

When referring specifically to shellfish, Leviticus 11:10 uses 'shekets'. When referring specifically to homosexuality, Lev. 18:22 uses 'toebah'.​

 

[NZA]

my only problem with the response to this controversy is that people should not be surprised. this man is a genuine southern cac. of course he hates, looks down upon, or disrespects anybody that is not like him. why people are acting like they are shocked and appalled just doesnt make sense. the moment you first saw what these duck dynasty people looked like on tv, the viewing audience pretty much had the word "cac" pop up into their minds. if you like cacs you watch the show, if you dont like cacs you dont watch. it's just like paula deen or dog the bounty hunter, i assume the worst from these people.

going forward, if they cast a reality show for eskimos, dont be surprised if they kill a whale from an endangered species. if you as a viewer want to boycott, it should probably begin at the first episode when you discover what kind of person this is, if you as a network are shook of boycotts, you probably should begin with a questionnaire to weed out bad people, or at the very least get them some media training so they dont say dumb shyt in public

 

[Type Username Here]

my only problem with the response to this controversy is that people should not be surprised. this man is a genuine southern cac. of course he hates, looks down upon, or disrespects anybody that is not like him. why people are acting like they are shocked and appalled just doesnt make sense. the moment you first saw what these duck dynasty people looked like on tv, the viewing audience pretty much had the word "cac" pop up into their minds. if you like cacs you watch the show, if you dont like cacs you dont watch. it's just like paula deen or dog the bounty hunter, i assume the worst from these people.

going forward, if they cast a reality show for eskimos, dont be surprised if they kill a whale from an endangered species. if you as a viewer want to boycott, it should probably begin at the first episode when you discover what kind of person this is, if you as a network are shook of boycotts, you probably should begin with a questionnaire to weed out bad people, or at the very least get them some media training so they dont say dumb shyt in public

Wouldn't it be bigoted to assume what he is by the way he dresses, acts, speaks and/or where he is from?

Because if the above is fair game, isn't any assumption about any group or subgroup of people valid, even those towards blacks, asians, hispanics and so on?

Dangerous territory there friend.

 

[Jhoon]

Dangerous territory there friend.