Jump to content

Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson (And Anyone Similar) A Source Of Truth? A Voice Of Warning? A Stumbling Block?


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

No, I don't watch it.

 

“You lose your religion, you lose your morality, you lose your freedom,” Robertson said. “You cannot be right for America if you are not right with God.”
 

 

Seems to me this guy has a handle on principles taught in verses such as:
 

 

10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.

 11 And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done.

 12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

 

Ether 2:10-12

 

 

Now it strikes me that many would consider this Phil Robertson to be uncouth to put it mildly.  Nevertheless....

 

 

 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

 

1 Corinthians 1:24-28

 

 

I would be curious to know your thoughts on messages or sermons of truth, warning, revelation, etc. coming from sources like this. Obviously we have the true prophets, but does not God also use these types of instruments?  Is it not true that for some, hearing our prophets is beset by stumbling blocks whereas some would harken to truth taught by to Phil Robertson and vice versa?

 

Is there not a danger for anyone to whom Phil Robertson is a stumbling block and thus they do not believe the message even from a 'more respectible' source because they heard it first from, for example, Phil Robertson?

 

Are we excused for not listening, heeding, or believing because of stumbling blocks?

Link to comment

Willie and Korie Robertson of Duck Dynasty are in a Christian movie that didn't get the best reviews, too many Atheists, ;). It's called "God's Not Dead".

I haven't seen it but it's a movie about a guy in college that stands up for belief in God to his college professor who's conducting some kind of test with all the students. So that movie is a way to reach people also.

Link to comment
I haven't seen it but it's a movie about a guy in college that stands up for belief in God to his college professor who's conducting some kind of test with all the students. So that movie is a way to reach people also.

 

Articles and examples of standing up to college professors and the like are published in the Ensign et. al. from time to time.

Link to comment

That Mr. Robinson is a rich white racist little jerk that wouldn't know the US Constitution if God smacked him upside the head with it.

Mighty strong words. I read something about bearing a false witness once.  Careful saint. May God judge you the way you judged this man.

Link to comment

What part of the constitution doesn't he know?

That part that doesn't agree with Saint's liberal, progressive, world view.

Link to comment

For all that don't know Phil Robertson views on the Pre Civil  Rights Era of Louisiana.

SEE Here:

 

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

 

For all that don't know Phil Robertson views on Jeebus. No insult to the real Jesus just this jerk's ideas about him.

SEE Here:

 

"Look at any society where there is no Jesus. I'll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus ...".

 

For the record the NAZI'S were Christians.

SEE NAZI Christian iconography:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

 

Mr. Robertson certainly is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts.

Link to comment

For all that don't know Phil Robertson views on the Pre Civil  Rights Era of Louisiana.

SEE Here:

 

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

 

For all that don't know Phil Robertson views on Jeebus. No insult to the real Jesus just this jerk's ideas about him.

SEE Here:

 

"Look at any society where there is no Jesus. I'll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus ...".

 

For the record the NAZI'S were Christians.

SEE NAZI Christian iconography:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

 

Mr. Robertson certainly is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts.

 

He is entitled to his own interpretation of the facts however.

 

The relationship that the nazis had with Christianity was pretty convoluted.  While they used Christianity to further their cause, Hitler was not a Christian, and many high ranking Nazis were anti-Christian.  Hitler's ultimate plan was to take down the church's and force them to adopt his ideology. He knew he had to bide his time with that though, so in the meantime he ordered his Nazi officials to remain members, even though they had nothing but contempt for religion.

 

Their use of Christian iconography was just a tool to help them control the Christian masses.

Link to comment

He is entitled to his own interpretation of the facts however.

 

The relationship that the nazis had with Christianity was pretty convoluted.  While they used Christianity to further their cause, Hitler was not a Christian, and many high ranking Nazis were anti-Christian.  Hitler's ultimate plan was to take down the church's and force them to adopt his ideology. He knew he had to bide his time with that though, so in the meantime he ordered his Nazi officials to remain members, even though they had nothing but contempt for religion.

 

Their use of Christian iconography was just a tool to help them control the Christian masses.

 

No he isn't. Any more than I can say that my interpretation of the color red is blue. That makes hash of facts.

 

While the Devil can use Scripture to his own ends. It is not a good idea to tell other people what they believe. The NAZI'S claimed to be Christian. That they did many of the same things that other Christians have done is indisputable. If some group claims a religion, acts on that religion, uses iconography of that religion, establishes churches based on that religion. It is very hard to say that they don't believe what they say they do. As despicable as the NAZI'S were, and I can't think of any that were worse. They had a right to believe as they did. They were Christians. We object when someone claims we are not Christians because of our rather unique beliefs about Christ. But that doesn't make us not Christians.

 

Christianity has used faith as not only as shield, but as a sword since its beginnings.

Link to comment

No he isn't. Any more than I can say that my interpretation of the color red is blue. That makes hash of facts.

While the Devil can use Scripture to his own ends. It is not a good idea to tell other people what they believe. The NAZI'S claimed to be Christian. That they did many of the same things that other Christians have done is indisputable. If some group claims a religion, acts on that religion, uses iconography of that religion, establishes churches based on that religion. It is very hard to say that they don't believe what they say they do. As despicable as the NAZI'S were, and I can't think of any that were worse. They had a right to believe as they did. They were Christians. We object when someone claims we are not Christians because of our rather unique beliefs about Christ. But that doesn't make us not Christians.

Christianity has used faith as not only as shield, but as a sword since its beginnings.

My point TSS is that there are many reputable historians who also deny that the Nazis were Christians.

It doesn't mean they are making up their own facts, and it doesn't mean that Robertson did either. It just means they are interpreting the facts differently than you are.

And that is allowed. :D

Link to comment

My point TSS is that there are many reputable historians who also deny that the Nazis were Christians.

It doesn't mean they are making up their own facts, and it doesn't mean that Robertson did either. It just means they are interpreting the facts differently than you are.

And that is allowed. :D

 

I think it is arguable that any individual is or isn't a Christian by someone else's standards. I have profound questions about my own ancestors actions reflecting their Christian beliefs, and sometimes even my own. But it isn't up to me to decide on what they really did believe. Historians bless their hearts are no better at it than I am.

 

Sorry that just doesn't make any sense to me. Some have believed the moon to have been made of green cheese. When I look at the moon I see a man riding a bicycle. It is my interpretation and I won't deny those the right to believe anything they want. But facts are stubborn things and it doesn't really matter what any of us believe. It doesn't change the facts. Our moon didn't suddenly go from a disk of green cheese to a man riding a bicycle just because I think it looks like one. It really is just a ball of dirt and rock.

 

Mr. Robertson claims that Blacks didn't sing the Blues before the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's in this country. That is a demonstrably false claim. It is also a demonstrably false claim that the NAZI'S didn't have Jesus.

Link to comment

I think it is arguable that any individual is or isn't a Christian by someone else's standards. I have profound questions about my own ancestors actions reflecting their Christian beliefs, and sometimes even my own. But it isn't up to me to decide on what they really did believe. Historians bless their hearts are no better at it than I am.

To be clear, Historians are not talking about whether or not they were 'good' Christians, but whether or not Nazi's considered themselves followers of Christ. (And to be clear we are talking about real Nazis who believed the Nazi ideology)

Which they generally did not.  They had no use for Christ's gospel and no loyalty to Him in any way.  They did not believe they were subject to Him but served a different god altogether.  

 

They did not, again in general, consider themselves to be Christians-they only pretended to be to serve their purposes.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

To be clear, Historians are not talking about whether or not they were 'good' Christians, but whether or not Nazi's considered themselves followers of Christ. (And to be clear we are talking about real Nazis who believed the Nazi ideology)

Which they generally did not.  They had no use for Christ's gospel and no loyalty to Him in any way.  They did not believe they were subject to Him but served a different god altogether.  

 

They did not, again in general, consider themselves to be Christians-they only pretended to be to serve their purposes.

 

Believe me that rationalization has been used against whatever faith is being talked about including ours. No group is immune. However I'm especially not impressed by the likes of John D. Lee or the Saints he lead to the MMM, The Crusades, the Pogroms, the Inquisition, the Reformation, and Lord knows all the other insults to his good name committed by Christians.

Link to comment

Believe me that rationalization has been used against whatever faith is being talked about including ours. No group is immune. However I'm especially not impressed by the likes of John D. Lee or the Saints he lead to the MMM, The Crusades, the Pogroms, the Inquisition, the Reformation, and Lord knows all the other insults to his good name committed by Christians.

I'm pretty sure "they don't consider themselves to be Christians" hasn't ever been used against our group by historians.

:)

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure "they don't consider themselves to be Christians" hasn't ever been used against our group by historians.

:)

 

It is mixed bag. There are some 40,000 different flavors of Christians in the US alone. Catholic Christians, Evangelical Christians, LDS Christians just to mention a few. Each vying for the title of the only true Scotsmen er Christian. ;)  :)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Bernard Gui
      Something I wonder about...
      In 3 Nephi 12, Jesus says to the people at the temple,
      How are they more blessed if they believe the words of the eyewitnesses? Those who witnessed, believed, and were baptized also received forgiveness and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I understand the implication that greater faith is required, but in what way are they “more blessed”? Is this a quantitative or qualitative increase? 
      Those who were at the temple already had their faith sorely tried. They survived persecution, threats of death because of their faith, cataclysmic destruction, and days of darkness. They were allowed to see and touch the risen Savior. That in itself is an incomparable blessing reserved for very few mortals. Their obligation then was to be His witnesses. Without them, we would not know of the Resurrection. 
      I understand that signs do not necessarily lead to faith. Many who see signs never believe or fall away, but none of these Nephites nor the disciples in Jerusalem who saw and touched the risen Lord fell away. Sister Gui suggested it means those who hear the testimony of the witnesses and believe are more blessed than those who hear the testimony and don’t believe. It seems to me, though, that the Savior is comparing two groups - the witnesses and those who believe the witnesses - and the latter are the more blessed. 
      On two other occasions, some people are declared more blessed. 
      1. Those who humble themselves without compulsion.
      2. The three Nephite disciples who desired to tarry.
      However, speaking to Thomas, the Lord said,
      In this instance, those who believe without seeing are not more blessed. 

      I understand how these people are more blessed because of their faith. What do you think the Savior meant in 3 Nephi 12?
    • By gav
      Please check out the poll and comment if so inclined.
    • By AtheistGuy
      I’m not here to argue with anyone or change anyone’s mind. I’m just curious what compels you guys to believe the Book of Mormon and teachings of Joseph Smith? A lot of what of what I know about Mormonism comes from sources that have an anti-Mormon bias, and I want to see y’all’s perspective on the LDS church.
    • By Bernard Gui
      Others have probably already noted this, but here I compare 2 Nephi 26:1-8 (Nephi’s prophecy of the destruction that would follow the death of Jesus) with Mormon’s documentation of its fulfillment in 3 Nephi 8-10, including a review of the events in the words of Jesus. Mormon notes that this was the fulfillment of the words of the prophets in their scriptures (3 Nephi 10:11).
      I think the consistency in the details is remarkable considering the separation in time and text between the two accounts in the translation process. In some cases the words and order of events are exactly the same. Considering the fact that Joseph did not ask his scribes to review or reread passages to refresh his memory makes this even more intriguing. 
      If someone else has already written about this, I would like to look at it for comparison, but I am not aware that anyone has. Of course, I welcome your comments. Have at me!
       
      Calamities prophesied by Nephi (2 Nephi 26:1-8, in textual order): 
      A. the proud and wicked shall be burned up like stubble
      B. they will be swallowed up by the depths of the earth [by implication, also the sea]
      C. the mountains shall cover them
      D. whirlwinds will carry them away
      E. buildings shall fall on them, crush them to pieces, and grind them to powder
      F. thunderings
      G. lightnings
       H. earthquakes
      I.  all manner of destructions
      Calamities documented by Mormon (3 Nephi 8-10 in textual order and compared with Nephi’s order): 
      F. G. I. a great storm like no other previous storm
      F. G. I. a terrible tempest
      F. terrible thunder
      G. sharp lightening
      A. cities set on fire
      B. cities sunk into the sea 
      C. cities sunk and covered by earth and mountains
       F. G. I. tempests
      D. whirlwinds
      F. thunderings
      G. lightning
      H. quaking of the earth
      A. B. C. E. F. H. cities sunk, burned, shaken
      E. buildings fall to the earth and inhabitants killed
      I. many great destructions
      The voice of Jesus before His appearance to the Nephites explaining the destruction of the wicked (3 Nephi 9:1-12) compared with Nephi and Mormon’s lists:
      - those who perished did so because of their wickedness and abomination (casting out, stoning, and killing the saints and prophets)
      -the blood of the prophets cried out to Him against them
      -A. cities and inhabitants were burned by fire
      -B. cities and inhabitants were sunk into the sea
      -C. cities and inhabitants were covered with earth
      -B. I. cities and inhabitants were flooded
      -I. there were other great destructions
      Mormon's (3 Nephi 10:12-14) instructions to the Nephites that the righteous who were saved:
      -B. C. were not sunken and buried in the earth
      - I. were not drowned in the sea
      -A. were not burned by fire
      -C. E. were not fallen upon and crushed to death
      -D. were not carried away in the whirlwind
      -I. were not overpowered by the vapor of smoke and darkness [suffocated]
      Other similar details between  2 Nephi 26 and Mormon 3 Nephi 8-10:
      Nephi:
      -1. the wicked will perish because they will cast out, stone, and slay the saints and prophets
      -2. The blood of the saints will cry to the Lord against the wicked
      -3. the righteous will not perish
      -4. Christ will apear to them after the destruction
      -5.  Christ shall heal them
      -6. They will have peace for three and four generations, but then will come unparalleled destruction 
      Mormon:
      -1. the righteous who were saved did not cast out, stone, or shed the blood of the prophets
      -2. the blood of the saints and prophets came up to the Lord
      -3. the righteous did not perish
      -4. Jesus appeared to the people after this great destruction
      -5. Jesus healed and taught them
      -6. They had peace for three and four generations, but then came unparalleled destruction
      In review, Mormon asks the reader to search the scriptures to see if these things were not also predicted by the prophets Jacob, Zenos, and Zenock  (3 Nephi 10:14-17):
      -death and destruction by fire, tempests, whirlwind, and opening of the earth
    • By Five Solas
      As LDS Church membership growth stalls and in some places declines (particularly in urban areas like Seattle), a number of explanations have been offered.  There’s been a lot of focus on availability of information via the internet, particularly regarding church history.  There’s also been a lot of discussion of Millennials and their preferences, which are often not well aligned with traditional LDS beliefs and culture.
      But I wonder if part of the trouble isn’t related to a decline in the traditional candidate pool for LDS conversions.  In my experience, LDS converts often came from what I would call liberal Protestantism, mainline denominations many of which have been in steady decline in recent decades.  And if my observation is broadly true, then as they have declined the result has been a shrinking pool of promising candidates for LDS missionaries to draw from.  Implicit here is that the LDS message doesn’t resonate equally well across different groups (unless the candidate is only marginally engaged therein).
      What do folks here think?  Does the LDS religion have a uniform appeal across religious backgrounds?  Or are some more likely, statistically speaking, to be receptive to the LDS message? 
      --Erik
      _______________________________________________
      Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
      Now it looks as though they're here to stay
      Oh, I believe in yesterday
      --The Beatles, 1965
       
×
×
  • Create New...