Duck Dynasty, DUCK!

When did this country become a country when you can’t speak your mind freely?

Watching over all the furor that’s been going on over a guy who believes that sin is sin, and in no uncertain terms.  I don’t really approve of the way he said it, but the message is clear.  Sex outside of marriage is wrong.  Whether between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or anything else.  If you haven’t gotten married, sex between you is wrong.  Just as breaking all the other Commandments is wrong.

So I guess the question then becomes “Why is saying something is wrong hate-speech?”  What is hate speech, anyway?  I thought it was when you say “I hate that group because they’re …”  Like what the Democrat Party does to the Tea Party.  Isn’t that “hate-speech”?  If I stand up in the Washington Mall and tell everyone who will listen that sex outside of marriage is a sin…aren’t I hating the sin?  Not the sinner?  The DD guy said clearly that everyone deserves dignity, and has a right to walk down the street, and drink from the same water fountain, and sit in the same seat on the bus.  I don’t hear hate.  But if I know the neighbors have orgies on an on-going basis, and I tell the neighborhood that I think what they’re doing in is wrong, and then I see them the next day while I’m raking leaves, and  treat them like humans should be treated, how am I hating these people??

I’m not.  Plain and simple, I’m not.  On a personal note, I hate the fact that my grand-daughter ran off and got married and didn’t tell the grandparents.  I hate that she did it.  But I will not hate my granddaughter, and I will not hold a grudge.  I believe it’s the grudge-holding that’s hateful.  If I won’t talk to my neighbor because he does weird things in his home (whether legal or not), that’s hate.  IF you treat people like people, you can dislike what they do all you want.


I didn’t ever watch Duck Dynasty.  But I did watch other shows on A*E.  None of them mean much to me, so I’ll stop watching them.  And when I find the station that picks up Duck Dynasty, I will support that one.  The way to show your love is to support.  I like Bourchon Bakery.  I go there several times a year.  If I lived near Hoboken, I’d visit Buddy Velasco on a regular basis.  I love EWTN, so I watch a lot of things there.

I don’t know if I’ll write anything before Christmas, so to all my followers, I want to thank you for supporting me, reading my thoughts, and staying with me even when I don’t write regularly.  God bless you.

16 thoughts on “Duck Dynasty, DUCK!

  1. If I didn’t believe it completely, why would I be part of that faith? You, OTOH, have yet to do anything but cry out “Lies!” You have yet to produce any proof. Mery Christmas.

  2. its not possible to prove anything to someone who thinks they are a teacher, and already knows everything…
    you cannot justify catholicism from scripture.

  3. Of course I can. Matt 16:18-20, Jesus promises that he will institute His Church, and makes Peter His representative of that Church. You are welcome.

  4. Peter was not the rock on which the church was built, Jesus is the cornerstone, the builders rejected,,
    Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the true church,,

    I hardly think that it is the catholic church that Jesus is head of, with all of its idolatrous practices etc..

    Peter denied christ three times, was rebuked by paul for his hypocrisy, and Peter was also married… Peter was not the chief Apostle..

  5. So, you deny Jesus changing Peter’s name to Rock? Also, just because Jesus might be the cornerstone (we believe Jesus is the head!), does that preclude Peter being the visible head of the Church on Earth?
    Regarding idolatrous practices, who calls them that? Idolatry is worshipping man-made things, and no Catholic does that any more than any other human being. We don’t worship idols…
    Regarding Peter’s faults, Christ knew His church was made up of sinners. His own group of apostles were, why not the rest?

  6. You obviously do not know the difference between petra and petros,, Peter was one of the small stones, as were the other Apostles,on which the church, was/is built.
    Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone on which the church is built.
    Peter, was never the ‘visible head ‘of the church, if anything Paul, was the chief Apostle.
    catholicism certainly worships man made things, i.e. statuary, icons etc,,
    the bible refers to that practice as idolatry in the commandments, and elsewhere.
    Catholicism is by no means christian in any sense of the word.

  7. I deny no such thing, but in fact Peters name was changed , and that name meant small stone..

    Peter was never the visible head of christianity,…

    fact is, is that Jesus is head of the church.


    the so called pope is an heretic,apostate, and false teacher, and idolater.!!!

  8. One very big problem with your argument. Jesus didn’t call Peter Petros or Petra. Secondly, Jesus didn’t call the other apostles stones.
    Peter was the visible head. He named the successor to Judas, made the decision against circumcision for Gentiles, and went on to form the Church at Antioch, then on to Rome.
    Paul had a different purpose-evangelization.
    We don’t worship statues. You say we do, but we don’t. Why would God make a commandment, and then command Moses to break it?
    If Catholicism isn’t Christian, then there is no such thing as Christianity.

  9. Simon bar Jonas’ name was changed to Peter? I don’t believe it. Therefore, not reading the rest of your post…

  10. You are one of the most intelligently catholic people I have ever had thenmisfortune to talk to.
    You obviously do not know the difference between Petra and Petros,,

  11. Jesus didn’t call Simon bar Jonah Petros or Petra. He called Simon bar Jonah “Kephas” or “Cephas”. Which puts and end to your Petros/Petra argument.

    1. The Greek word for rock is “petra” (there is no word “petros”).

    2. Jesus called Simon “Kepha” which, in Aramaic, means a large rock, or massive rock formation.

    3. When the Gospel was translated into Greek, the writers translated Kepha into Petros (not petra). This was done to masculinize the name of Peter as Petros.

    4. Because petra in Greek can mean a small rock and the translation reads Petros, Protestants attempt to say that Jesus was calling Peter a small rock, in order to diminish Peter’s significance. But if Jesus wanted to call Peter a small rock, the translation would have read “lithos” (meaning small pebble in Greek), not “Petros.” Nevertheless, Jesus said Kepha (not “evna” meaning small pebble), so the
    Petra v. Petros comparison (which really doesn’t exist in Greek anyway) is



    If there’s one verse a Catholic can cite off the top of their head, it will always be Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 16, and here it is from the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible:

    “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [petros]; and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

    (Rome believes that there are Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts for the New Testament. However, if this is true, then they are as elusive as Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction, for no scholar, religious or secular, has ever found one fragment. Some may also be interested to learn that the meaning of the Aramaic word for Peter (Cephas) is sand. Not the best foundation to build upon. Matt. 7:26, 27.)
    Now on the surface it all appears rather simple. The Lord makes Peter the church on which He will build on. But when one reads the whole Bible, problems soon occur. First, the Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning a small stone. Second the Greek word for rock is petra, meaning a large stone.

    Please also note that in John 1:42, Jesus calls Peter “a” stone. Not “the” stone. The term “the” stone is given to Jesus alone by Peter himself in Acts 4:11. And not only does Peter twice in the NT call Jesus “the” stone or “rock,” but Martha practically echoes the same words of Peter from Matt. 16, in John 11:27: “Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.” So both Peter and Martha affirm that Jesus is the Rock.

    So it would appear that a careful play on words has just taken place. Jesus is not making Peter the church/rock, but rather He is the Rock Himself, with Peter being a small stone – one of many. We also learn that Jesus has to be the Rock, when we read Matt. 7:24;1 Pet. 2:4-9.

    Please see this video I did which goes into more detail.

    The Apostle John, who outlived all the apostles, never mentions “pope” Peter’s death, burial or even “succession.”

    Church “fathers” such as Irenaeus, Polycarp, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary and Ambrose, never acknowledged or taught that Peter was the first Pope (A Handbook On The Papacy, Bishop William Kerr, pgs. 48, 49.)

  13. But John and Paul both refer to Peter as Kephas or Cephas. John says that Peter is a translation of Cephas. Also Jesus is talking of future when he says “upon this rock I will build my Church”. Peter was not the rock of the Church until Pentecost, when Christ’s Church was instituted.
    You speak of a play on words…was there any significance of the Apostles and Jesus being at Caesarea Philippi? The rock structure…think about it…
    Church father Cyprian:
    “And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

    “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

What say you???

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s