Oh my, it has hit the fan.
Phil Robertson ignited a firestorm of criticism that engulfed him following a GQ interview in which he spoke about his views on what he believes is immorality. That interview has resulted in his Robertson’s suspension from the show “Duck Dynasty.” A sample of what he said:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
They take their religion seriously:
And then, of course, there is their faith, which plays no small role here. During the family’s initial negotiations about the show with A&E, Jase told me, “the three no-compromises were faith, betrayal of family members, and duck season.” That refusal to betray their faith or one another has been a staple of every media article about the Robertson family. It’s their elevator pitch, and it has made them into ideal Christian icons: beloved for staking out a bit of holy ground within the mostly secular, often downright sinful, pop culture of America.
And they’re not shy about it
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
The interviewer pushed on and asked Phil what he considered sinful and opened Pandora’s box:
What, in your mind, is sinful?
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Then he added something important and germane:
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
Hang on to that.
The reactions were swift. Robertson was suspended from his show by the A&E network, something of such apparent import that even the NY Times took note. And here we’ll being to examine how this event is being framed:
Mr. Robertson, who travels the country preaching, graphically denounced gay sex in the magazine and called it a sin.
They made it sound as though Robertson singled out homosexuality as a sin. He didn’t.
There was outrage, complete with misrepresentation. From Eric Sasson at the WSJ:
After an interview appeared in GQ in which he equated homosexuality to bestiality, used a quote from Corinthians which likened gays to “drunkards” and “prostitutes,” and questioned the “logic” of gay sexual practices, Phil Robertson has been suspended indefinitely from A&E’s hit show, “Duck Dynasty.”
Other than Phil being suspended, none of that is true. There was soul searching:
I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation, too.
Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizeable audience—most of whom, by the way, probably share his views—and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.
GK Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right—and he usually is—then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.
But that was only the beginning. Duck Dynasty is the most popular program in cable history and golly do people feel strongly about it. Duck Dynasty fans took to the interweb quickly. A “Boycott A&E” page was set up on Facebook and it has generated 750,000 “likes” as of last count.
The hits were coming so fast that the administrator of the page was suspended for 12 hours. Among the comments:
“I am going to buy a duck call from Duck Commander. I have never owned a gun or gone hunting in my life,” Watson L. Clark stated.
Teddy NeSmith said: “I stand for the U.S. Constitution and the 1st. Amendment, Phil can say anything he wishes about his religion.”
At least one sponsor is standing behind Phil Robertson.
The statement of Robertson’s hiatus released by A&E said this:
“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”
OK, that’s fine, but let’s have a look at some of the suggestions A&E has offered to the Robertson’s. Following alleged complaints about references to God and guns Phil told A&E:
“God and guns are part of our everyday lives [and] to remove either of them from the show is unacceptable.”
According to a post 93.1 The Wolf put in their Facebook page, Phil also said: “If we can’t pray to God on the show, then we will not do the show.”
In April Robertson said that on the one hand A&E bleeped out words to make it appear the Robertson’s were using vulgarities when none was being used and on the other hand wanted them to stop referring to Jesus.
Here is the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_0XS1vaX-M
Robertson hinted at why the editors wanted to delete references to Jesus:
“So I said, ‘Why would you cut out ‘In Jesus’ name?’ They said, ‘Well those editors are probably doing that. They just think that they don’t want to offend some of the Muslims or something.”
It would be illuminating to know who was offended, especially if it turned out to be Muslims who were offended as they share much with Phil Robertson. Islam’s view on homosexuality:
Islamic Shari’ah law is extracted from both the Qur’an and Muhammad’s Sunnah (found in the Hadith and Sira). Islamic jurisprudence are expansion of the laws contained within them by Islamic jurists. Therefore, they are seen as the laws of Allah. You need only look to the rulings under Shari’ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.
In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.
“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”
“Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.” (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)
And just for completeness:
As Salaamu Alaikum! (The peace of God be with you!)
Homosexuality is wrong, a sin, in Islam. Of that there really can be no dispute. See the excellent articles already on-line cited at the end of this article for the citations from the Qur’an. The point of this article is to try to put this into some reasonable perspective.
Sex outside of marriage is forbidden. It does not matter whether it is fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia or homosexuality. Many homosexuals claim they were born that way, they can’t help being homosexual. The truth is that man has an urge for sexual gratification. As rationalizing (more than rational) beings, people will always try to find a justification for any activity which they find enjoyable. As to the claim by some homosexuals that it is genetic, this has been decisively disproven. Studies have shown that children of homosexuals are no more likely to be homosexual than any other children. If it were hereditary, many more of them would be homosexual. In our society, homosexuality frequently seems to result from a failed male role model, a father who is abusive or grossly negligent. Bestiality and pedophilia are certainly natural as well. Every society has men who use children sexually. Everywhere sheep or goats are kept, they are used for sex. So the argument that homosexuality is natural or inborn has little persuasive power for Muslims.
Fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia and homosexuality you say?
So let’s recap. A&E suspended Phil Robertson for his voicing his religious belief that homosexuality is illogical and against his religion and A&E is a strong supporter of the LGBT community and A&E wanted to eliminate references to Jesus as that offends Muslims whose religion believes homosexuality is wrong and illogical.
Makes perfect sense.
A&E has discovered touching the third rail of contemporary culture can have some shocking consequences and right now Duck Dynasty is that third rail.
You have to love it. It’ll be really interesting to see what happens next.
UPDATE
I forgot to include this. There are some at A&E who are not bothered by Robertson’s opinion:
An openly gay couple on A&E’s “Storage Wars: New York” is NOT offended by the homophobic comments made by fellow A&E’er and “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson — telling TMZ, they just feel bad for him … because man ass beats vagina any day of the week. Chris Morelli and Tad Eaton tell us, “We could give a s**t what he thinks … [man ass] is tighter.”
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Bingo
@Aqua:
Or she was the victim of a common double standard throughout history. If that’s the case, Jesus’ challenge to the hypocrisy of the mob is working on multiple levels.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Thank you for placing your ignorance on display for all to see.
@Aqua:
It was your scenario that you should not judge the sins of others, but could judge the sins of a murderer. The onus is on you to explain how you got there.
The speculation is all yours. No where in the Scriptures does it say anything about the woman being a prostitute. Nor does it say that she committed adultery with a married man who would have also been accused. You, like your leftie friends here, are trying to write into the Bible what is not there.
By studying terms used in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, kione Greek) we learn there are set distinctions between adultery and fornication.
Adultery has to involve at least one (but it could also be two) married persons.
Fornication usually involves single people, except when it is applied to degrading things done against the will on one marriage mate by the other marriage mate.
Since this woman was accused of adultery, there had to be a partner who also committed that act and one of them (probably the male) had to be married.
“Caught in the act,” in fact, the other partner had to be known, but is not accused here.
However there is an interesting story behind this story….
The Codus Sinaicitus, the Codez Vaticanus and the Sianctic Syriatic codex all omit this story!
Thus this is a questionable set of verses, maybe even spurious!
We just don’t know.
@retire05:
As you wish. There is nothing in the Biblical Canon that Noah was born of a virgin, it can be found in the Book of Enoch. Enoch was left out of the Canon, but is referenced by Jude (Jude 1:14-16). Just because it isn’t specifically spelled out in the Bible doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence that points to the fact. It’s not my theory that the adulterer was a prostitute, it is something I learned in a Bible Study, led by a priest with a PhD is theology. He could be wrong, but I’m going to take his side over yours.
Nope, the crime of murder. I can look at evidence and say that the facts point to a person committing the crime of murder. Sin and the fate of a person’s soul are judged by God.
@Tom:
Which He did often.
@Aqua:
“And Jesus went unto mount Olivet, and early in the morning came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught to them.
And the scribes and Parisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery, and they set her in the midst.
And they said to him; Master. this woman was even now taken in adultery, .
Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?
And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
John 8:1-7
My Bible is a Douay Rheims version, taken from the Vulgate. No where does it mention the woman was a prostitute, and so I have to call b/s on your claim that a priest would say that the woman was a prostitute when no version of the Bible (such as KJV) says that. Perhaps you would like to offer up that priest’s name so I could contact him? What order was he? SJ? Jesuit? Franciscan?
Nice attempt at obfuscation. Crime of murder? Is murder not only a crime, but a sin? Now you are saying that you judge the “crime” but not the “sin?” How do you separate them in your mind? When you judge someone is guilty of murder, you are also judging that they are guilty of the sin of murder. You are trying to make apples and oranges out of apples and apples.
@retire05: 38
Yes, I was gonna ask Tom that same question.
@Aqua: Aqua you said:
and then this is a partial quote from your quote:
I believe that the guidance from Jesus in the bible is to judge others by the same standard as you would be judged. If Jesus has said something is a sin, then it is okay for you to say it is a sin and that someone that does that thing is a sinner, just as long as you are willing to say that if you also did that thing, you would be okay with being judged a sinner for doing that thing. I don’t think there is any pronouncement from Jesus not to judge anyone, but to judge them by the same standard that you are willing to be judged by. Why have a list of sins from God, (10 commandments amongst others) if no one can say that doing those things are a sin? The Pope is the descendant of Peter, the Rock that Jesus built his church upon. If the Pope can’t pronounce what a sin is, then who is to say if it is a sin? To me, it only means that the Pope shouldn’t judge a gay as committing sin unless he were willing to let God judge him as a sinner if he was gay. The Pope, by saying “well, who am I to judge him?” Is only attempting to say he’s not willing to say that being gay is a sin so that the wrath of gays will not befall him. He can’t in all honesty say that he’s not willing to judge them because he’s not sure if God considers it a sin, or not. That is why I would say the Pope is trying to be politically correct but not religiously correct.
@Ronald J. Ward: 48 Ronald, the most revealing thing you said was:
Tell me how both sentences can be true. If in fairness, ” I can’t speak for Mr. Robertson’s understanding of of the situation he lived in. ” Then how can you say: “There is however a need for a retraction from Phil Robertson.”? While I’m a little older than Phil, I don’t think enumerating sins of the South from 1882 to 1968 accurately reflects the time of Phil’s growing up. I grew up in the deep south and I would not have wanted to be a black person anywhere in the US during that period of time. But there are times that everyone enjoys their personal situation regardless of the turmoil going on around them, and I think that ‘s what Phil was referring to, his recollections of the ‘good times’. I’m equally sure he could relate terrible stories of man’s inhumanity to man, both directions. Are you saying or implying that no black persons EVER had fun or good times? That it was all only famine, whippings and cruelty? Are you saying that no white persons ever endured famine, whippings and cruelty? I’ve not heard Phil say anything that I think he owes an apology for.
@Tom:
As spoken by a secular progressive socialist.
@Aqua:
widely speculated? well that certainly clears it up.
@Redteam:
Phil Robertson was born in 1947. His family was dirt poor (the reference to “white” trash) with a home that had no running water and no electricity. How was his life any better than the blacks that he lived near and worked the fields with? Is it not a case where children, forced to work the fields with each other, viewed themselves equal in poverty? What are the chances that the Robertson’s attended the same rural church with their black counterparts?
But RJW drags out Rosa Parks, who made her stand in the ’50’s when the Robertsons, without electricity, would not have had access to a radio. Nor would their black counterparts who were without electricity. As to MLK, that was in the ’60s when Phil was considered an adult (unlike Obama who thinks people are still children up to the age of 26) by his family. He started college in the ’60’s, so it would have been there, not at home, that he was exposed to the extent of the civil rights movement. RJW also drags out The Tuskegee Institutes numbers on lynching. Did he bother to mention that almost 60 of that 391 were white? Nope, doesn’t jive with RJW’s agenda.
RJW would have you believe that poor people in the ’40’s, ’50’s and ’60’s were all miserable and could in no way be happy. He is too much the progressive to understand that back then, when you were poor, and all around you were also poor, your poverty was not a hindrance to your happiness, because you didn’t really think of yourself as poor.
The verses the Duck Dynasty star quoted continues like this (various translations) :
And such some of you were [once].
And certain of you were these!
And ye were sometime these things
Some of you were like that.
You all get the point.
Next the verses point out how one who practiced any or many of those sinful things had CHANGED.
Even the Duck Dynasty star made that point when he said he had used drugs, been a drunk and other stuff, BUT that he had turned around.
Turning around (in Christianity called repenting and turning around) is why the Pope is not being judgmental of a homosexual who is “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” the pope said.
As long as a person draws breath he is capable of repenting and turning away from whatever sins he is practicing!
Religions, like Islam, who self-assign their own humans as God’s police, judges, juries and executioners make it impossible for a living sinner to be in a better place with God.
That is because they kill the persons.
Christians do not do that.
All judgement of eternal life rest with God.
@retire05: All true Retire. RJW didn’t make his case at all. As I said, I’m older than Phil, grew up in houses without running water or electricity, (ever since 1950 all my homes have had both) worked in the fields, mostly with whites, I was aware of Rosa Parks at the time it occurred. I remember many more ‘great times’ back then than I do ‘terrible’ times. Some blacks did go to church at the white church’s (and sat in the back) but most went to their own church’s.
While ‘dirt poor’ whites didn’t have to worry about lynching in the ’40’s, I don’t recall any lynchings of blacks in my neighborhoods either. As I said, I wouldn’t have wanted to be black anywhere in the US at that time, but it wasn’t easy street for dirt poor whites either. Clarence Thomas and I were from the same part of the country, but I’m several years older. I went to college on a scholarship that I got on ability and worked to support a family while attending, and it WASN’T an Ivy League school. Clarence Thomas went to Yale solely ‘because’ he was black (affirmative action). I don’t recall any ‘affirmative action’ for dirt poor white trash in the South.
You said:
So true. That was an advantage that I had. I didn’t know I was ‘dirt poor white trash’. The blacks around me, they didn’t know that they were either.
@Nanny G:
Nanny, I basically agree with you, BUT: If a gay person doesn’t KNOW that being gay is a sin, and there is no one to tell him that it is a sin and no one is ‘judging’ it to be a sin, is it just gonna be a “and then a miracle occurs” situation?
I think where the entire discussion is being misconstrued is: “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” the pope said. The context of what ‘judge’ means. Apparently God is the ‘Judge’ and makes the ‘judgment’, but the pope is the ‘guidance counselor’ not the judge. The ‘guidance counselor’ has the position of advising the gay person (amongst others) that being gay is a sin. And that if you are a performing gay person, you are committing a sin. And a person that wants to go to heaven to spend a lifetime with God has to recognize that he is a sinner and has to repent from the sins and accept Jesus as their personal savior. Now if there is no guidance counselor, and assuming the person can’t read and understand the scriptures, then how is that person going to know he is committing a sin and can not spend eternity in heaven? So the guidance counselor (Pope) is not judging, just telling him which is the right track vs wrong track. The fault I find with the Pope is, apparently he’s not willing to say that a gay person that does not repent will not spend eternity in heaven.
@Redteam:
I remember living in a [cotton] mill town when I was a kid. My dad was trying to start a business so all our money went into building that business, hopefully with the promise of a better future of all of us. We lived in a four room rent house that was on the edge of town (remember the kind? Clapboard with two front doors?) in the poor section and the town didn’t even bother to pave our street (we were right across from a huge cotton field). Our neighbors were black and they had 6-7 kids. They did have electricity but really struggled since the father was the janitor at the mill.
But I remember that family as if it were yesterday I last saw them. The mother, who was the best cook I have ever known, had such pride in her family. The kids went to school in hand-me-down shirts and blouses that were starched to the point they could stand on their own. She was not educated very well but made sure that each kid did their homework and had no problem telling teachers to let her know if the kids slacked off. And boy howdy, if they did slack, was she a woman you did not want to deal with.
We played together, and as we were almost as poor as they, and lived on the poor side of town, we didn’t think of how poor we were. I remember when their oldest graduated from high school, in the new shirt he had ever owned, and we were all so proud because he was headed off to Prairie View A & M.
Now, we teach kids to resent their poverty (are you really living in poverty if you have a TV, X-box, Air-Jordans and HVAC systems?) instead of learning from it and understanding that there are things, like families and faith, that money cannot buy?
@retire05: Good stories. My parents and grandparents were in tobacco farming and cotton farming. I know how it’s done.
@retire05:” RJW drags out Rosa Parks Would have you believe all poor people in 40’s etc were unhappy” Where did I say any of that? You got Tourettes?
Your tag team partner RT ” RJW didn’t make his case.” What case?
You two oughta get a room!!
@Richard Wheeler:
Seems you suffer from Tourettes. Nobody was talking about you.
RJW stands for Ronald J Ward, moron.
Now, go wipe the
droolegg off your face.@retire05: Wards #48 My mistake
Still think you and your amour RT should GET A ROOM.
@Richard Wheeler:
The case RJW was trying to make.
was that really egg? or drool?
@Richard Wheeler:
Is that what passes for comedy at that school that gave you a diploma printed on toilet paper(whether used or not hasn’t been determined) and enclosed in a Cracker Jack box? Or is that a common practice, you’ve discovered, amongst secular progressives who share common ground?
Great point, Redteam.
You recall to mind the couple named Aquila and Priscilla who met a Jewish man aglow with spirit, yet unacquainted with any baptism after John the Baptizer’s.
In Acts 26-28 the couple corrected him, re-adjusting his knowledge. Then he went forth and expounded accurate knowledge encouraging baptism in Jesus’ name.
So, yes, there is a place in reproving and setting things straight. (2 Timothy 3: 16, 17.)
Perhaps the Pope was not speaking directly to that part of the Christian obligation for some reason.
He was almost there, however.
@Redteam:
Nah, it’s a comment someone who just made a fool of himself says when there is nothing constructive he can offer.
Redteam, let’s take a look at what Pope Francis said:
“A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” the pope said. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters.”
The key phrase here being “seeking God.” That means that a gay person, who does not succumb to their homosexual desires and are seeking God by following His laws. I also think that the Pope meant that they must accept their abnormality and adjust to living in a heterosexual world, as designed by nature, wherefore they would be “integrated” into society and not living outside society’s norms by acting on their physical desires.
If anyone thinks that Pope Francis is going to some day soon come out and support the homosexual life style, they should hold their breath until he does.
@retire05:
I certainly don’t think he has shown any ‘endorsement’ of homosexuals. I do think he is ‘guilty’ of parsing words to keep the wrath of gays off him. I do think his position is ‘clear’.
Retire, I’m not keeping up with the Pope, but, did he actually say you don’t have to be a Christian to go to heaven?
@Redteam:
I’m not familiar with a comment like that. But do I believe that people can go to Heaven if they are not Christians? Yeah, I do. Do I think that aboriginal peoples, who have never heard of Christ, can go to Heaven, or the others who, while not Christian, but do no harm make it to Heaven? Yes.
@Richard Wheeler: It’s not meant as comedy.
I do see a rare disagreement between you two.
You say one must be Christian–accept Christ– to reach Heaven.
05 disagrees—good for her.
@Richard Wheeler:
ok RW, where and when did I say that? and don’t say in 68, I was just referring to the duties of a guidance counselor.
@retire05: Retire, I’m not a Catholic, but from what I’ve heard,
the belief of the Catholic church is if someone dies without having accepted Christ, then they go to purgatory until they’ve been exposed and given the free will then to accept Christ. If that is not the teaching of the Church, then i’ve been mislead by many, many Catholics for a long long time.
In fact, I found this:
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/11/12/reader-question-does-the-church-still-believe-in-purgatory.htm
@retire05:
If nothing else, you are entertaining, this made me laugh out loud. His name is Father John, he’s a Jesuit, and he retired back to Ireland about 14 months ago. Not that it would matter, I’m sure if he explained why the woman was believed to be a prostitute, you would want more proof. As a matter of fact, I imagine if Jesus Himself told you the woman was a prostitute, you would ask him if He actually saw her turn tricks or if He was just going off rumors. Either way, Merry Christmas Retire05.
@AquaI’m missing something here. At no time, in the bible, is the woman referred to as a prostitute. For anyone to insist she was, including Father John, should be a sin, since it is casting a stone at a person without knowledge or reason of what that person is really guilty of. Being an adulterer and a prostitute are not the same thing. The fact that Father John referred to her as something that he had no knowledge of is a mark of an ignorant person. (at a minimum, ignorant of facts).
If a person says “I have a mother” that does not equate to her being a prostitute. It’s the same deal.
@Aqua:
I know of no priest that would make the claim that the woman of the Bible was a prostitute when all versions, including my own Douay Rheims version, clearly states the woman was accused of adultery. But nooooo, Father John, of Ireland (of course) said differently.
Scriptures tell us the woman was accused of adultery. You’re the one questioning Scriptures, not me.
@retire05:
Father John, of Ireland with a PhD. in Theology.
I’m not questioning scripture. Faith is a journey, not a destination. The story of the adulterer (prostitute) is filled with little things that should speak to the reader. First, it was a trap the Pharisees had set for Jesus. They wanted Jesus to instigate the stoning in accordance with the law of Moses. If Jesus shows indifference to the law, then he would be condemned. The law is from Leviticus 20:10
Now the Pharisees knew the law and they knew Jesus knew the law, so where was the man. Since both were supposed to be stoned, where was he? Speculation that the woman was a prostitute because Jesus could have easily brushed off their trap by demanding the man be tried at the same time. He didn’t.
Instead he wrote in the dust. It is believed this event happened on the eight day of the Festival of Tabernacles. That means it was the Sabbath. It is not specifically stated in the Bible that this event happened on the eight day of the festival or that it was the Sabbath. It is believed it happened on the Sabbath because you were not permitted to write even two letters on the Sabbath, but you could write with dust. Jesus was showing he knew the law and the oral interpretations of the law.
But the whole point of the story is Jesus telling the Pharisees to cast the first stone if they were without sin. He was telling us to look at our own sins before we condemn others. That is my interpretation, my journey. Your mileage may vary.
@Aqua:
An adulteress, and a prostitute, are NOT one and the same. A woman can be an adulteress, and not a prostitute, and vise versa.
Speculation by whom?
@retire05:
We’ve been over this and it’s no longer a constructive debate. You have your beliefs and are free to believe the way you want. And I have mine and have the same freedom. You offer absolutely nothing to a debate.
I offered my interpretation and the interpretation of a Bible study I attended. There is no reason for you to interpret it the same. You could offer your interpretation of the story, yet you dwell on one word. A word that isn’t even that important to the story. Instead of enlightening us on your reason the man wasn’t accused and brought before Jesus, you offer nothing. Rather you tell me the onus is on me to prove it. I need to prove nothing to you. At the end of the day, I’m free to believe my interpretation regardless of your views and you are free to do the same.
@Aqua:
So say you, who obviously doesn’t want to admit that a) the priest (Fr. John of Ireland) was wrong or b) you didn’t know what you were talking about to begin with and have now fabricated some story about being told the woman was a prostitute, and not an adulteress, by some fictional priest.
I believe that every version of the Bible says the woman was accused of being an adulteress. You refuse to acknowledge that. You have egg on your face so you are trying to change the subject in some way.
.
It was that “one word” that you were wrong about. Instead of blathering about some Bible study, why don’t you just use the Scriptures themselves? Just admit you were wrong and get on with it.
Actually, it is. And what do you offer? Falsehoods?
I don’t believe I used those words. Are you now into putting words into people’s mouths that were not there?
True.
You are also free to be wrong.
And I am free to quote Scriptures, as written, no interpretation required, and you are free to dispute Scriptures as written ’till the cows come home. Doesn’t make you right that the woman was an adulteress, and not a prostitute.
Which of these Bible versions say the woman was a prostitute (one can be an adulteress w/o being a prostitute, and vise versa)?
http://biblehub.com/john/8-4.htm
@Aqua: Aqua, when you’re wrong, just accept it and go on with something else, don’t try to prove that someone that said you were mistaken is wrong and make up a ‘story’ to try to prove it. Your position is no different than if you owned a cow that had a calf and someone congratulated you for fathering a new child. I don’t think you would support their position that if YOUR cow had a calf that you HAD to be the father. At some point you might try to say that just because your cow had mated, it didn’t mean it had to be with you. A woman can be an adulteress without being a prostitute.
@retire05:
Not every version of the Bible even has the passage in it. It wasn’t in the early manuscripts, it was added later. However:
http://tyndalearchive.com/scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/story.htm
*this discussion seems to be leaning toward the adulteress being an ordinary housewife or young woman to add sympathy to the case, but they concede it could have been a prostitute.
http://www.bcbsr.com/books/john8a.html
*emphasis added mine.
http://www.capalert.com/judgenot.htm
http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Jesus%27_%22judge_not%22_does_not_apply_to_the_death_penalty
I’m not giving these examples to prove I’m right. I’m giving the examples to show I’m not the only person that has been led to this interpretation. I have no need to lie about Bible study. I was even admonished for bringing up the fact that there are theories out there that Mary Magdalene was the prostitute/adulteress in the story. If you want to piss off a priest, just bring that up.
@Aqua:
The including of “commonly referred to” was put there by the author of the website.
Also, most of your links quote not all of John 8, just the part about Christ’s refusal to condemn the woman. So basically you are trying to change the discussion from what the woman was accused of to a) the passage did not appear in all Biblical texts (yet, no indication of those it was omitted from), yada, yada, yada.
Give up the obfuscation and attempt at diversion, Aqua; it’s not your forte.
What? What about this:
Yet, here you are again, trying to win a debate with someone you said
about.
Moot point. And the Church long ago gave up the theory that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Seems you are not an “up to date” Catholic.
Bottom line; you have not produced on Biblical text, from the DR to KJV, that says the woman of John 8 was a prostitute, and if you want to continue to claim it did, then I guess we can just assume you are an eisegete.
Perhaps you can re-check with Fr. John Wh0-Has-No-Last-Name of Ireland.
@Aqua:
Are you really trying to prove a negative here? The fact that some bibles don’t have it in the bible does not mean that she was a prostitute.
But that’s not a quote from a bible, it’s a quote from a “Father John” trying to make a case.
This is not a quote from a bible, it’s only what some ‘Father John’s’ interpret incorrectly.
Strange that you feel a comfort in being just another of the ones that have been mistaken.
Here is an Apple (adulteress), turn it into an orange (prostitute) without using any facts to support it.
@retire05: @Redteam:
Well, I tried. It’s like discussing Quantum Physics with a couple of eight year old’s.
@Aqua:
Tried what? To divert, obfuscate? You still have not produced ONE fact that says any written text of Scripture says the woman was a prostitute.
Ah, true to your progressive leanings, when you are losing the battle, insult your opponents intellect. You claim libertarian leanings; your musings here at FA say differently.
@retire05:
Careful there O5, he’ll say that Father John told him to say that.
@Aqua:
Hey, there’s no reason to insult eight year olds just to make a point. 🙂
@Tom:
Yeah, Tom, that was kinda slap in the face of all you progressive mental midgets, who would have a hard time besting an 8 year old, that fills the ranks of the DNC.