Duck Dynasty

[kayem77]

QUOTE: "Also, I do agree that Mr Robertson should've worded his thoughts about racial segregation differently. I don't know the man, didn't even watch the show, but I read the interview and it seemed like he was just stating what he saw, but in a rather naive and unwise way if you ask me. I don't think he meant to sound offensive though, or that he is racist, and the media obviously blew everything out of proportions.... but he should've clarified, especially with a touchy subject like that one. It's like me saying ''Yeah I lived in Nazi Germany times, but personally I never saw a Jew being mistreated or complaining about being mistreated'' <------sounds totally ignorant and foolish to say that knowing they general reality of that historical time. "
END QUOTE............

What you need to keep in mind is the Article published is not the "totality" of the interview..........GQ "edited" the Article to read as they desired it to be read......so don't assume that Phil is "ignorant and/or foolish" based on how GQ edited the Article.

Did you read all of my post? I never said Phil was ignorant or foolish, but his comment was. Where is that ''unedited'' part of the interview where he changed his words about what he said? I don't know why people take this so personal. The guy is no inerrant, he can make mistakes, and I don't judge him for that. I think he had good intentions, as I stated earlier, but was his commentary unwise and naive? Yes, it was. A person in his position of influence should be more careful with his words, that's the reality.

But I will repeat this in case someone accuses me of being a hater. I admire Mr Robertson's boldness and openness about his faith. More Christians in influential positions should stick to the Bible and oppose compromising. I just think he should've worded his thoughts differently.

 

[Hizikyah]

Did you read all of my post? I never said Phil was ignorant or foolish, but his comment was. Where is that ''unedited'' part of the interview where he changed his words about what he said? I don't know why people take this so personal. The guy is no inerrant, he can make mistakes, and I don't judge him for that. I think he had good intentions, as I stated earlier, but was his commentary unwise and naive? Yes, it was. A person in his position of influence should be more careful with his words, that's the reality.

But I will repeat this in case someone accuses me of being a hater. I admire Mr Robertson's boldness and openness about his faith. More Christians in influential positions should stick to the Bible and oppose compromising. I just think he should've worded his thoughts differently.

A delicate balance, something I need work on, getting the Scriptural truth across without being too abrasive yet not compromising Scriptural principles.

 

[Cee]

I'll share what I posted on my Facebook on this topic since it agrees with what you both said...

"We won't always agree on methods, interpretations, and/or on how we choose to say and "do things". But, we are called to be unified. Not dividing because we don't agree with how someone chose to handle business. Truth isn't an easy thing to say in public spotlight, more and more people are being beaten down not only from the world, but also from their well intended brothers and sisters.

Is it a wonder why so few will step out? Why few pray for sick, share the good news with the lost and get on the rooftops shouting truth? We should expect the world to disagree and wage a war against our message, but we saints should be supporting one another.

After all it is our love for one another that shows the world Whom we follow. Phil made the difficult choice of speaking the truth at the risk of personal success. We should make the difficult choice of supporting him. Especially if we want to be a greater light to the world, we must be one, as God is one, like Christ told us to be."

C.

 

[kayem77]

I'll share what I posted on my Facebook on this topic since it agrees with what you both said...

"We won't always agree on methods, interpretations, and/or on how we choose to say and "do things". But, we are called to be unified. Not dividing because we don't agree with how someone chose to handle business. Truth isn't an easy thing to say in public spotlight, more and more people are being beaten down not only from the world, but also from their well intended brothers and sisters.

Is it a wonder why so few will step out? Why few pray for sick, share the good news with the lost and get on the rooftops shouting truth? We should expect the world to disagree and wage a war against our message, but we saints should be supporting one another.

After all it is our love for one another that shows the world Whom we follow. Phil made the difficult choice of speaking the truth at the risk of personal success. We should make the difficult choice of supporting him. Especially if we want to be a greater light to the world, we must be one, as God is one, like Christ told us to be."

C.

Hey Cee, I appreciate your respectful response . I agree that we shouldn't slander our brothers and sisters in Christ, and should be very careful before passing judgement. That's why I tried my best not to sound like I was being only critical of Mr Robertson. However, love doesn't mean agreement. I still think he should have picked his words more wisely. I don't think he is racist or homophobic, but I do question his choice of words. If we weren't talking about Mr Robertson and someone else had said it, I would still think those words regarding the pre Civil Rights era were naive and unwise.

I don't like when we politicize people or arguments so much that we stop seeing the argument or the person anymore, but only the agenda. I myself have been guilty of this before, and I'm trying not to do it anymore. I agree with Phil Robertson's core message, and I think his intentions were good, and I admire his boldness. I think the media is exaggerating what he said, especially by calling him racist or homophobic which is stupid, but if he had said ''That's only what I saw, but I know this wasn't the case everywhere, and I admire the people who fought for Civil Rights'' or something along those lines, it would have been even better .

 

[JimJimmers]

I don't like when we politicize people or arguments so much that we stop seeing the argument or the person anymore, but only the agenda. I myself have been guilty of this before, and I'm trying not to do it anymore. I agree with Phil Robertson's core message, and I think his intentions were good, and I admire his boldness. I think the media is exaggerating what he said, especially by calling him racist or homophobic which is stupid, but if he had said ''That's only what I saw, but I know this wasn't the case everywhere, and I admire the people who fought for Civil Rights'' or something along those lines, it would have been even better .

Also, one thing I keep thinking to myself is "what question was asked him?" If the interviewer asked him, "What was it like for you living in the pre-civil rights era?" Then I think his response was entirely appropriate. He said he never personally saw any racism.

Now if he was trying to say that since he never saw it it didn't happen, that is a different matter entirely. But I just feel like too many people will jump on a soundbite that has no context.

 

[JimJimmers]

The signs are all over that show, but the one the really convinced me was when they partnered with the Trincheros to market "Duck Commander Wine". Is that a Christian thing to do? According to the bible it's not.

Jesus turned water into wine, I can't see how you can think wine is unchristian/unbiblical.

 

[KJV1611]

Jesus turned water into wine, I can't see how you can think wine is unchristian/unbiblical.

Hey Jim, yes Jesus made wine, but it was new wine... unfermented wine. Wine is made by adding leaven (yeast), I don't think Jesus would add leaven to anything he made.

 

[p_rehbein]

Did you read all of my post? I never said Phil was ignorant or foolish, but his comment was. Where is that ''unedited'' part of the interview where he changed his words about what he said? I don't know why people take this so personal. The guy is no inerrant, he can make mistakes, and I don't judge him for that. I think he had good intentions, as I stated earlier, but was his commentary unwise and naive? Yes, it was. A person in his position of influence should be more careful with his words, that's the reality.

But I will repeat this in case someone accuses me of being a hater. I admire Mr Robertson's boldness and openness about his faith. More Christians in influential positions should stick to the Bible and oppose compromising. I just think he should've worded his thoughts differently.

Seriously? Read this comment............goodness..........QUOTE: I think he had good intentions, as I stated earlier, but was his commentary unwise and naive? Yes, it was. A person in his position of influence should be more careful with his words, that's the reality. END QUOTE.............

"unwise and naïve?" oh, but, that's ok.............as we split hairs, let us remember we were referring to his "commentary," and not passing judgment on him................

Why do people take it personal? The same reason people take salvation personal.................it IS personal when a Christian is set upon for doing nothing more than saying what the Word of God says............

Anyway.................I don't think you meant to demean Mr. Robertson, it's just that your assessment of his commentary was foolish and naïve. Now, don't take that personal.

 

[lynda]

More Phil, Less Miley | Broken Without Jesus

THIS IS A REALLY GOOD ARTICLE ABOUT WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT (BTW I was not yelling- CAPS was on, and I didn't realise until it was too late...and there is no way to get rid of it without typing it again, and I cant be bothered).

p.s. actually i didn't read everything that everyone wrote - so I don't know if it is relevant. I just thought I would put my five cents in.

 

[Lyd]

Look at the life of Daniel...The Lord is so faithful, we get deceived into thinking we need to compromise to keep our place. You see if you fight to get a spot in your workplace you'll always have to fight to keep it. However where God places you, He keeps you..."Seek FIRST the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added unto you..." Don't be deceived...This isn't the end, God has something in store for this man. Through his standing it has actually encouraged my heart! Praise GOD! He will receive his reward in due time. Daniels friends were cast into the furnace and they found the forth man in there, Daniel was cast in the lions den and yet God preserved him...from kingdom to kingdom that fell Daniel was preserved because he placed is trust in God!!!!!!!!!!!

Pray for that family! Pray for them! May they continue to stand firm, God will lift them up in due time.

 

[Manny21]

And just like David against Goliath, David= standing for God, Goliath= compromising with what is politically correct. David defeated Goliath with a slingshot and a stone just to show that God can take something that looks stupid to bring down corrupt government. Just like God was with David because of standing for the right thing He will be with this man because He is standing for the right thing.

 

[JimJimmers]

Hey Jim, yes Jesus made wine, but it was new wine... unfermented wine. Wine is made by adding leaven (yeast), I don't think Jesus would add leaven to anything he made.

Hey KJV, what say you to this? (I used your favorite Bible too!)

Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

 

[Cee]

Kayem,

Good response. I think we can support Phil while not agreeing with how he said everything. His track record shows he's a good man, he's an honest man, and he loves Jesus. That's good enough for me. I suppose he could have said things differently, but I have felt that about myself many times as well. Hindsight is 20/20 and its always easy to say should of, could of, would of's.

As far as the wine comment... this is for anyone who might be mislead by that comment.

1. the Kingdom is like leaven. Leaven is used in Scripture as a bad thing and a good thing.
2. when Jesus turned water into wine, we know it was very potent...

The host tells us this, usually people put the best wine first... Why? Because people are already sloshed and they can't tell the difference... but the host continues, but they put the best wine last... that means it was seriously good stuff. Jesus didn't only make wine, but he made some very good wine.

Jesus turned water into wine and some people have been trying to turn it back to water ever since. Noah got so drunk he slept with one of his daughters, definitely fermented wine and that was far before Jesus times.

I guess that's my 5 cents.

C.

 

[Stephen63]

The Duck Dynasty star and former minister paraphrased a bible verse saying that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God, and A&E booted him off his own show. What a nice Christmas present. There's a downside to being a Christian and saying what we think. Being P.C. has over-run the first amendment. If you say what you believe, you lose your job.. Do you think firing Phil Robertson was the right thing for the network to do?

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

I have some questions:

*How much of real christianity actually gets viewed on worldly-owned media?

*Who owns these media companies?

*What is the usual intent & purposes of the world-owned media?

*Will the world-owned media publish true christian media for profit? When have they ever done it?

*Do we really know what's going on? Or are we "told" what's going on?

*What will be the end result?

I'm not trying to be opinionated, just promoting independent thought & investigation, that's all.

 

[KJV1611]

Hey KJV, what say you to this? (I used your favorite Bible too!) Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Yep, new wine is the Holy Spirit. That's why I know the water turned to wine is not fermented.

 

[KJV1611]

As far as the wine comment... this is for anyone who might be mislead by that comment.

1. the Kingdom is like leaven. Leaven is used in Scripture as a bad thing and a good thing.
2. when Jesus turned water into wine, we know it was very potent...

The host tells us this, usually people put the best wine first... Why? Because people are already sloshed and they can't tell the difference... but the host continues, but they put the best wine last... that means it was seriously good stuff. Jesus didn't only make wine, but he made some very good wine.

Jesus turned water into wine and some people have been trying to turn it back to water ever since. Noah got so drunk he slept with one of his daughters, definitely fermented wine and that was far before Jesus times.

I guess that's my 5 cents.

C.

Hang on a second Cee... My comments are not misleading.

1. Leaven is never a good thing in scripture, it always represents sin. The leaven in the parable of the kingdom of heaven is sin.
3. The bible doesn't say anyone was drunk at that wedding party. It says "when they have well drunk". That means they drank a lot, not that they were drunk. They were not drunk because they were not drinking alcoholic wine.

Joh 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

 

[Misty77]

What are the Duck Dynasty guys famous for?
Long Hair
Camouflage
Christians

All of the Old Testament types of antichrist have long hair... It is a shame for a man to have long hair.
What is a wolf in sheep's clothing? A wolf in camouflage pretending to be a Christian.

The signs are all over that show, but the one the really convinced me was when they partnered with the Trincheros to market "Duck Commander Wine". Is that a Christian thing to do? According to the bible it's not. They also use the "fusion of opposites" symbol -> the double D back to back.

666, sacred feminine, "as above so below", mark of the beast, "sons of god, daughters of men symbolism is everywhere we look, only most people can't see it.... they don't even know it exists even though they are exposed to it on a daily basis. I saw an avitar picture on here a week or so ago that had 666 (disguised) then John 3:16 on it. The person that had it had no idea what the picture symbolized and still probably doesn't.

God sheds the light for us, if we will just look.

You are over-allegorizing and looking for demons behind every bush. I encourage you to seek the path of truth and sanity.

 

[KJV1611]

You are over-allegorizing and looking for demons behind every bush. I encourage you to seek the path of truth and sanity.

I get that all the time Misty lol. I'm on the path to truth and sanity, that's why I see things other people don't see. Why would you assume the problem is with me, have you considered that maybe you are ignoring the demons in the bush? Just curious...

I think I have seen every episode of Duck Dynasty, it's one of my favorite shows on tv. I grew up in the south and lived and worked with men just like Phil, in fact most of my family are just like Phil lol and I love 'em to death. Phil's long hair and camo have nothing to do with my questioning of Phil's legitimacy, I questioned that long before this interview deal came out. The long hair and camo just backup the conclusions I already came to.

 

[p_rehbein]

QUOTE:

What are the Duck Dynasty guys famous for?
Long Hair
Camouflage
Christians

All of the Old Testament types of antichrist have long hair... It is a shame for a man to have long hair.
What is a wolf in sheep's clothing? A wolf in camouflage pretending to be a Christian.

The signs are all over that show, but the one the really convinced me was when they partnered with the Trincheros to market "Duck Commander Wine". Is that a Christian thing to do? According to the bible it's not. They also use the "fusion of opposites" symbol -> the double D back to back.

666, sacred feminine, "as above so below", mark of the beast, "sons of god, daughters of men symbolism is everywhere we look, only most people can't see it.... they don't even know it exists even though they are exposed to it on a daily basis. I saw an avitar picture on here a week or so ago that had 666 (disguised) then John 3:16 on it. The person that had it had no idea what the picture symbolized and still probably doesn't.

God sheds the light for us, if we will just look.

END QUOTE.............

So a person having long hair cannot be a Christian? Wow............WRONG........but, still, wow........Can't be Godly men with long hair? So I guess the Nazarites were servants of the anti-Christ........wow......

The rest is simply gobbly gook...........to the n'th degree and YOUR OPINION...........Now, you are entitled to your opinion, but as you seem to put "stock" in who someone "partners" with..........you do realize that in condemning this family, you have "partnered" yourself with GLAAD?

(not a partnership I would seek........)

 

[KJV1611]

QUOTE:

What are the Duck Dynasty guys famous for?
Long Hair
Camouflage
Christians

All of the Old Testament types of antichrist have long hair... It is a shame for a man to have long hair.
What is a wolf in sheep's clothing? A wolf in camouflage pretending to be a Christian.

The signs are all over that show, but the one the really convinced me was when they partnered with the Trincheros to market "Duck Commander Wine". Is that a Christian thing to do? According to the bible it's not. They also use the "fusion of opposites" symbol -> the double D back to back.

666, sacred feminine, "as above so below", mark of the beast, "sons of god, daughters of men symbolism is everywhere we look, only most people can't see it.... they don't even know it exists even though they are exposed to it on a daily basis. I saw an avitar picture on here a week or so ago that had 666 (disguised) then John 3:16 on it. The person that had it had no idea what the picture symbolized and still probably doesn't.

God sheds the light for us, if we will just look.

END QUOTE.............

So a person having long hair cannot be a Christian? Wow............WRONG........but, still, wow........Can't be Godly men with long hair? So I guess the Nazarites were servants of the anti-Christ........wow......

The rest is simply gobbly gook...........to the n'th degree and YOUR OPINION...........Now, you are entitled to your opinion, but as you seem to put "stock" in who someone "partners" with..........you do realize that in condemning this family, you have "partnered" yourself with GLAAD?

(not a partnership I would seek........)

I didn't say people with long hair are not Christians p_rehbein. I just gave you what the bible says about long hair. Study people with long hair in the bible and see what you come away with.

As for gobbly gook... occult symbolism is all around you, you just can't see it. Below is occult symbolism in the windows logo.... you don't think they put those symbols in there for aesthetics do you. Nope everything that we see from corporate American is very carefully designed, no TV show nuance or company logo is by chance. They are telling you where they stand... it is best if you heed their warning. You know, the Duck Dynasty guys probably don't have a clue as to what they are portraying, but you can bet your bottom dollar the producers and execs at A&E do.