So, there's this chicken place...

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
par wrote:

The importance is one of hypocracy. If one believes portions of written work contained in a specific peice of literature but completely ignores other sections of the same literature for any reason, then the argument of lawfully abiding by the "chosen" ideals is pretty much moot. This goes for almost any subject or medium.

Which is exactly why I now believe that the opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is nothing more than the "ick" factor.

So, assuming for the sake of argument you're correct - you're saying it's wrong for society to prohibit actions based solely on the fact that the underlying behavior is widely considered abhorrent? In other words, you'd have to run such a rule through a utilitarian litmus test and show concrete harm to another person (or their rights) for that law to be valid? Just curious where you would draw the line and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Again you just have to look back 50+ years to laws in the South preventing interracial marriage.

Regarding Chick-Fil-A, as long as no crimes are being committed on any side of the argument, vote your conscience. Dollars or otherwise. What's his nuts can spend his money however he wants as long as it's in a lawful fashion. Your response is fine too as long as it's also lawful.

Regarding marriage, I've only ever seen two outcomes as this runs its course:

1. The State (and voters) are allowed to define it as a purely secular institution however they want without consulting a higher authority or anything that isn't statute or vote count. And if defining the makeup of your family is a civil right rather than a privilege, you must show harm before legislating restrictions.

2. If marriage truly is a construct of the One True Religion, the State finally realizes that it has about as much business defining marriage as it does defining baptism and sh*t-cans the whole issue. Civil Unions for All!!

My position is: The more people cite Adam and Steve and otherwise reference the Bible to defend 'traditional marriage', the more they're hurting themselves by bringing about Outcome 2. If it's the term they want, then they can have it back. Congratulations, you're now Civil Unioned. If it were me drafting the legislation, I'd pick an even more awkward and kludgey term, just to be a dick.

GioClark wrote:

2. If marriage truly is a construct of the One True Religion, the State finally realizes that it has about as much business defining marriage as it does defining baptism and sh*t-cans the whole issue. Civil Unions for All!!

To me that's the solution. Everyone gets a civil union and your church/mosque/temple/church of Elvis/etc. can imbue whatever higher meaning on your relationship. I'm still perplexed as to why the government is in the marriage business and why we can't just "give marriage back" to churches.

GioClark wrote:

My position is: The more people cite Adam and Steve and otherwise reference the Bible to defend 'traditional marriage', the more they're hurting themselves by bringing about Outcome 2. If it's the term they want, then they can have it back. Congratulations, you're now Civil Unioned. If it were me drafting the legislation, I'd pick an even more awkward and kludgey term, just to be a dick.

Indeed. All for this. And I'm married.

DSGamer wrote:
GioClark wrote:

2. If marriage truly is a construct of the One True Religion, the State finally realizes that it has about as much business defining marriage as it does defining baptism and sh*t-cans the whole issue. Civil Unions for All!!

To me that's the solution. Everyone gets a civil union and your church/mosque/temple/church of Elvis/etc. can imbue whatever higher meaning on your relationship. I'm still perplexed as to why the government is in the marriage business and why we can't just "give marriage back" to churches.

GioClark wrote:

My position is: The more people cite Adam and Steve and otherwise reference the Bible to defend 'traditional marriage', the more they're hurting themselves by bringing about Outcome 2. If it's the term they want, then they can have it back. Congratulations, you're now Civil Unioned. If it were me drafting the legislation, I'd pick an even more awkward and kludgey term, just to be a dick.

Indeed. All for this. And I'm married.

+1

We can't have government ignoring Christian rules of marriage; that would ignore the fact that we're a Christian country. It would be giving in to the forces of secularism, and ultimately that means Satan. We've already lost the Democrats to Satan, why let it go further?

It is on Netflix FYI, I watched it last week.

Robear wrote:
We're talking a time period where homosexuality was much more widely accepted in Greek and Roman culture than it is now, and Paul was a Roman citizen. Unless I have my dates wildly inverted, I don't think this is accurate.

Paul, though, is pretty clear that *any* sexual activity is a sin, and he feels it is only legitimate in marriage to head off illicit sexual activity. I think Paul disagreed with the Greek Jews and others who accepted homosexuality; I think he would have regarded it as a judgement of god, rather than the way someone is, and thus doubly sinful - not just sex, but defiance of nature as well. He refers to the acts which result from that defiance as "indecent" and specifically calls out men being attracted to men as being against nature. (It's interesting that Paul ascribes this to God *causing* this change in people in retribution for their rejection of Him.) Romans 18-27, where he says "...God gave them over to degrading passions..."

I accept this interpretation as valid, but I wanted to point out that it's not the only one. Yes, there's a list of conservative and alternative interpretations as well.

I don't think Paul took the Roman or Greek approach to this; instead, he tries to focus people on the idea that all sex is a waste of time, given the imminent end of the world as he knew it. It seems to have been hard for the followers of the Church, too, given the amount of time he spends on the topic.

Here (seeing that we've entered a well trodden and off topic pasture we've both been grazing for years), I tend to agree. Although I still hold to the theory that Paul was specifically trying to steer Christianity away from Judaism as a means to keep the then-Jewish sect from poisoning the teachings of the Pharisees.

NSMike wrote:

Ultimately, life is far easier when you consider the Bible and the works therein as just another part of our culture, and a collection of works of literature, and nothing more.

This is absolutely true, but the easiest path is seldom the best one.

Robear, Paul writes that the return of Christ could happen at any time, including during his lifetime. Paul also writes that no one knows when that date will be, so he must have thought it could happen during his life, or after.

We talked extensively about the biblical view of "homosexuality"(sorry Phoenix, I'm not sure what other term to use) in other threads like this and this and this and this, and I feel like I don't have much more to add than reaffirm that homosexuality is just one of many sins like greed and pride that keep us from God, but are readily forgiven when we repent and trust in the finished work of Christ in His death and resurrection. As a follower of Christ I am to show authentic love and compassion to everyone, not because I am better, but because we are all in the same boat, helpless and totally without hope without Christ.

Robear, Paul writes that the return of Christ could happen at any time, including during his lifetime. Paul also writes that no one knows when that date will be, so he must have thought it could happen during his life, or after.

He also wrote that he expected to be alive when this happened, and made frequent statements that "the time is at hand" and the "the judge is at the gate". The early Church fathers had a quite literal belief that God's kingdom would come in their lifetimes.

The Church actually had to change it's eschatology and it's interpretation of scripture and prophecy a few hundred years after Christ's death in order to accommodate the problem that the Kingdom of Heaven had not shown up as prophesied, but might instead be put off indefinitely. Emphases changed, but at the time of the early Church, there are many references in the gospels to the imminence of Jesus' coming again.

This is yet another change in what is often said to an unchanging source of truth. My overall point is that if we hew to Scripture on this, but not on other things, then we are just picking and choosing what to follow, even with the most sincere intent. Christianity, like everything else, changes over time, and it will change on this issue as well. Even today we see many Christian thinkers and leaders arguing that the Bible *supports* gay marriage. In light of that, it's hard to say that there's one truth in the Bible that everyone understands. In my experience, it contains as many truths as it has readers.

This is absolutely true, but the easiest path is seldom the best one.

Nice platitude. No one has been able to convince me that there is anything good that can be gotten from the Bible without being extremely selective.

Robear wrote:
Robear, Paul writes that the return of Christ could happen at any time, including during his lifetime. Paul also writes that no one knows when that date will be, so he must have thought it could happen during his life, or after.

He also wrote that he expected to be alive when this happened, and made frequent statements that "the time is at hand" and the "the judge is at the gate". The early Church fathers had a quite literal belief that God's kingdom would come in their lifetimes.

The Church actually had to change it's eschatology and it's interpretation of scripture and prophecy a few hundred years after Christ's death in order to accommodate the problem that the Kingdom of Heaven had not shown up as prophesied, but might instead be put off indefinitely. Emphases changed, but at the time of the early Church, there are many references in the gospels to the imminence of Jesus' coming again.

This is yet another change in what is often said to an unchanging source of truth. My overall point is that if we hew to Scripture on this, but not on other things, then we are just picking and choosing what to follow, even with the most sincere intent. Christianity, like everything else, changes over time, and it will change on this issue as well. Even today we see many Christian thinkers and leaders arguing that the Bible *supports* gay marriage. In light of that, it's hard to say that there's one truth in the Bible that everyone understands. In my experience, it contains as many truths as it has readers.

I think the key point in your post is "The Church actually had to change it's eschatology". Nothing in scripture changed. The reason the "Church" had to change it's position was that their position was not well supported by scripture. The "Church" has had many positions over the years that directly oppose what the Bible says, like the selling of indulgences, the Crusades, and the worship of Mary the mother of Christ. Not everyone who believes the Bible adheres to the doctrines of a certain section of the larger group called Christians.

edit: I apologize that this has nothing to do with chicken sandwiches. We can move this discussion to another thread if preferred.

Nomad wrote:

I think the key point in your post is "The Church actually had to change it's eschatology". Nothing in scripture changed. The reason the "Church" had to change it's position was that their position was not well supported by scripture. The "Church" has had many positions over the years that directly oppose what the Bible says, like the selling of indulgences, the Crusades, and the worship of Mary the mother of Christ. Not everyone who believes the Bible adheres to the doctrines of a certain section of the larger group called Christians.

Not totally germane to this discussion, but there have been pretty large changes in scripture over the last two thousand years, due to scribal error, additional stories being added and removed, and such. Bart Ehrman's books are pretty good intros to the subject:
Misquoting Jesus
Forged

That, and one cannot divorce scripture from the Church, in Robear's use of the word. Either someone (a Church) interprets scripture for the individual, or the individual (a Church of One) interprets it for themselves. The effective and unavoidable conclusion is that while ink on a page may not change (an assumption itself false as Tanglebones or the plethora of different an opposing translations show), our species' understanding of it naturally progresses as we evolve from primitive nomad culture afraid of pigflesh and menstruation.

an assumption itself false as Tanglebones

I parsed the above quote weirdly

Which is why I made the comment that the Reformation was a net bad thing overall for Christianity, in that it widened the doctrines one could pull from the Bible to nearly infinity. That, however, is certainly a controversial view, since some good came of it as well (and also centuries of bloodshed and misery).

Nomad wrote:

We talked extensively about the biblical view of "homosexuality"(sorry Phoenix, I'm not sure what other term to use) in other threads like this and this and this and this

Okay, first, the scare quotes are unnecessary and are frankly insulting. You wouldn't be too pleased if I started talking about the "Bible" and kept scare-quoting that word.

and I feel like I don't have much more to add than reaffirm that homosexuality is just one of many sins like greed and pride that keep us from God, but are readily forgiven when we repent and trust in the finished work of Christ in His death and resurrection.

So, again, you state that the only way folks like me, Phoenix Rev, NSMike, Fedora, and others on here and all the myriad LGBTQ folks out there is to accept Christ and... what? Pretend we're not gay anymore? Be celibate? This is horribly derailing, but I've really had it with people saying that we're broken and religion is the answer.

If we're broken, it's not because of our sexual orientation. If anything, our sexual orientation leads to people being broken over the backs of those who persecute them. The problem in that situation lies not with the person being broken, but the people doing the breaking.

As a follower of Christ I am to show authentic love and compassion to everyone, not because I am better, but because we are all in the same boat, helpless and totally without hope without Christ.

Tell that to the Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, animists, pagans, agnostics and atheists out there who are doing just fine and dandy without Christ, see how well that goes over. And to be totally frank, it doesn't show much love when all we ever hear is how we're doing everything wrong if we're not 100% in agreeance with those showing us the "love". At best, we start tuning out the other person, and at worst it wears away at the person's self-esteem to the point that they do horrible things to themselves.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/4H7N8.png)

Nomad wrote:

We talked extensively about the biblical view of "homosexuality"(sorry Phoenix, I'm not sure what other term to use) in other threads like this and this and this and this

Rubb Ed wrote:

Tell that to the Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, animists, pagans, agnostics and atheists out there who are doing just fine and dandy without Christ, see how well that goes over. And to be totally frank, it doesn't show much love when all we ever hear is how we're doing everything wrong if we're not 100% in agreeance with those showing us the "love". At best, we start tuning out the other person, and at worst it wears away at the person's self-esteem to the point that they do horrible things to themselves.

I don't speak for all atheists, but my perspective is that at a certain point this all becomes white noise and we tune out all religious folks. You all fight constantly over how to judge each other based on your beliefs on things that are most likely imaginary. It's all looks so insane from this angle, like fighting over Santa Claus. You choose to treat other human beings poorly based on things you have not scientifically proven and meanwhile the Earth still turns with or without your consent. It's sad and dispiriting and eventually you just give up and move on, honestly.

That's where your (my) mind goes eventually. You give up and you focus on having a good life and being good to people since this is a never-ending battle that will never be won.

DSGamer wrote:

I don't speak for all atheists, but my perspective is that at a certain point this all becomes white noise and we tune out all religious folks. You all fight constantly over how to judge each other based on your beliefs on things that are most likely imaginary. It's all looks so insane from this angle, like fighting over Santa Claus. You choose to treat other human beings poorly based on things you have not scientifically proven and meanwhile the Earth still turns with or without your consent. It's sad and dispiriting and eventually you just give up and move on, honestly.

That's where your (my) mind goes eventually. You give up and you focus on having a good life and being good to people since this is a never-ending battle that will never be won.

You can speak for me. That is basically my position as well.

DSGamer wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Tell that to the Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, animists, pagans, agnostics and atheists out there who are doing just fine and dandy without Christ, see how well that goes over. And to be totally frank, it doesn't show much love when all we ever hear is how we're doing everything wrong if we're not 100% in agreeance with those showing us the "love". At best, we start tuning out the other person, and at worst it wears away at the person's self-esteem to the point that they do horrible things to themselves.

I don't speak for all atheists, but my perspective is that at a certain point this all becomes white noise and we tune out all religious folks. You all fight constantly over how to judge each other based on your beliefs on things that are most likely imaginary. It's all looks so insane from this angle, like fighting over Santa Claus. You choose to treat other human beings poorly based on things you have not scientifically proven and meanwhile the Earth still turns with or without your consent. It's sad and dispiriting and eventually you just give up and move on, honestly.

That's where your (my) mind goes eventually. You give up and you focus on having a good life and being good to people since this is a never-ending battle that will never be won.

I feel ya, man. This is, I suspect, a significant part of why I migrated gradually to atheism myself. I respect people's religious beliefs, but I honestly think the world would be a better place without religion.

Farscry wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Tell that to the Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, animists, pagans, agnostics and atheists out there who are doing just fine and dandy without Christ, see how well that goes over. And to be totally frank, it doesn't show much love when all we ever hear is how we're doing everything wrong if we're not 100% in agreeance with those showing us the "love". At best, we start tuning out the other person, and at worst it wears away at the person's self-esteem to the point that they do horrible things to themselves.

I don't speak for all atheists, but my perspective is that at a certain point this all becomes white noise and we tune out all religious folks. You all fight constantly over how to judge each other based on your beliefs on things that are most likely imaginary. It's all looks so insane from this angle, like fighting over Santa Claus. You choose to treat other human beings poorly based on things you have not scientifically proven and meanwhile the Earth still turns with or without your consent. It's sad and dispiriting and eventually you just give up and move on, honestly.

That's where your (my) mind goes eventually. You give up and you focus on having a good life and being good to people since this is a never-ending battle that will never be won.

I feel ya, man. This is, I suspect, a significant part of why I migrated gradually to atheism myself. I respect people's religious beliefs, but I honestly think the world would be a better place without religion.

I'd adjust that to fundamentalism, rather than religion. It's both narrower and broader - it covers fundamentalist beliefs in state ideologies, sports teams, racial superiority, etc.. but you can still have adherents of religion that do great and good things in the name of that religion, or who are inspired by their beliefs.

Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think the key point in your post is "The Church actually had to change it's eschatology". Nothing in scripture changed. The reason the "Church" had to change it's position was that their position was not well supported by scripture. The "Church" has had many positions over the years that directly oppose what the Bible says, like the selling of indulgences, the Crusades, and the worship of Mary the mother of Christ. Not everyone who believes the Bible adheres to the doctrines of a certain section of the larger group called Christians.

Not totally germane to this discussion, but there have been pretty large changes in scripture over the last two thousand years, due to scribal error, additional stories being added and removed, and such. Bart Ehrman's books are pretty good intros to the subject:
Misquoting Jesus
Forged

These type of books have been around for ages. Here is an excerpt from a quick response to the latter:

article[/url]]Dr. Mike Licona, a rising star in New Testament scholarship, has been reading an advanced copy of Forged. He told me that the most prolific biographer of antiquity is widely held to be Plutarch (as in Plutarch’s Lives), yet of all the 50 or so existing manuscripts we have of Plutarch, none of them are signed.

Were they forgeries? By Ehrman’s definition, it would seem so. But no serious scholar holds that view.

Dr. Licona, who has debated Ehrman twice, told me, “What we’re seeing from Ehrman [in Forged] is not new information. It may be new to many readers who aren’t used to looking at the academic stuff, but it’s not at all new.”

Ehrman goes on to assert that many New Testament books that do claim authorship within the text, such as Ephesians, Colossians, and the letters of Peter and James, are not written by the claimed authors. It should be noted that this is not based on manuscript evidence. It’s based largely on the style of the text, and there are many conservative scholars who are not convinced by these arguments. Thus, Ehrman is stating liberal opinion as fact.

Ironically, Ehrman even states in his own book, “Virtually all of the problems with what I’ve been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the compositions of the early Christian writings.” [p. 134]

But that’s exactly what happened.

Tanglebones wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I feel ya, man. This is, I suspect, a significant part of why I migrated gradually to atheism myself. I respect people's religious beliefs, but I honestly think the world would be a better place without religion.

I'd adjust that to fundamentalism, rather than religion. It's both narrower and broader - it covers fundamentalist beliefs in state ideologies, sports teams, racial superiority, etc.. but you can still have adherents of religion that do great and good things in the name of that religion, or who are inspired by their beliefs.

I try to think that way, but yet I see so many examples in my personal direct experiences of people who are moderate religious types, and who are primarily inspired by their religion to do good things, but yet still have elements of their religion that cause strife and tribalistic attitudes.

I can concede that non-religious faith is often benevolent. But organized religion... it seems like there's inevitably some part of it that eats away at the good things like a cancer. And that makes me sad, because of all the good elements of belief.

[edit]But yes, I do see your bigger point about fundamentalism in general (not just restricted to religion) and I agree.

Rubb Ed wrote:
Nomad wrote:

We talked extensively about the biblical view of "homosexuality"(sorry Phoenix, I'm not sure what other term to use) in other threads like this and this and this and this

Okay, first, the scare quotes are unnecessary and are frankly insulting. You wouldn't be too pleased if I started talking about the "Bible" and kept scare-quoting that word.

and I feel like I don't have much more to add than reaffirm that homosexuality is just one of many sins like greed and pride that keep us from God, but are readily forgiven when we repent and trust in the finished work of Christ in His death and resurrection.

So, again, you state that the only way folks like me, Phoenix Rev, NSMike, Fedora, and others on here and all the myriad LGBTQ folks out there is to accept Christ and... what? Pretend we're not gay anymore? Be celibate? This is horribly derailing, but I've really had it with people saying that we're broken and religion is the answer.

If we're broken, it's not because of our sexual orientation. If anything, our sexual orientation leads to people being broken over the backs of those who persecute them. The problem in that situation lies not with the person being broken, but the people doing the breaking.

As a follower of Christ I am to show authentic love and compassion to everyone, not because I am better, but because we are all in the same boat, helpless and totally without hope without Christ.

Tell that to the Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, animists, pagans, agnostics and atheists out there who are doing just fine and dandy without Christ, see how well that goes over. And to be totally frank, it doesn't show much love when all we ever hear is how we're doing everything wrong if we're not 100% in agreeance with those showing us the "love". At best, we start tuning out the other person, and at worst it wears away at the person's self-esteem to the point that they do horrible things to themselves.

Sorry if my quotes came across as scare quotes. I used them because Phoenix didn't prefer that word but I didn't know another that would fit.

As for the broken comment...

We are all broken. Every one of us. That is the main premise of the Gospel.

What does this have to do with friend chicken now?

Nomad wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I think the key point in your post is "The Church actually had to change it's eschatology". Nothing in scripture changed. The reason the "Church" had to change it's position was that their position was not well supported by scripture. The "Church" has had many positions over the years that directly oppose what the Bible says, like the selling of indulgences, the Crusades, and the worship of Mary the mother of Christ. Not everyone who believes the Bible adheres to the doctrines of a certain section of the larger group called Christians.

Not totally germane to this discussion, but there have been pretty large changes in scripture over the last two thousand years, due to scribal error, additional stories being added and removed, and such. Bart Ehrman's books are pretty good intros to the subject:
Misquoting Jesus
Forged

These type of books have been around for ages. Here is an excerpt from a quick response to the latter:

Yup, for about three hundred years, going back to Erasmus. Ehrman isn't adding anything new in his books, just collecting and popularizing centuries of research.

article[/url]]Dr. Mike Licona, a rising star in New Testament scholarship, has been reading an advanced copy of Forged. He told me that the most prolific biographer of antiquity is widely held to be Plutarch (as in Plutarch’s Lives), yet of all the 50 or so existing manuscripts we have of Plutarch, none of them are signed.

Were they forgeries? By Ehrman’s definition, it would seem so. But no serious scholar holds that view.

Dr. Licona, who has debated Ehrman twice, told me, “What we’re seeing from Ehrman [in Forged] is not new information. It may be new to many readers who aren’t used to looking at the academic stuff, but it’s not at all new.”

Ehrman goes on to assert that many New Testament books that do claim authorship within the text, such as Ephesians, Colossians, and the letters of Peter and James, are not written by the claimed authors. It should be noted that this is not based on manuscript evidence. It’s based largely on the style of the text, and there are many conservative scholars who are not convinced by these arguments. Thus, Ehrman is stating liberal opinion as fact.

Ironically, Ehrman even states in his own book, “Virtually all of the problems with what I’ve been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the compositions of the early Christian writings.” [p. 134]

But that’s exactly what happened.

The thesis of Ehrman's book is that some elements of the New Testament were attributed to particular saints well after the point where they were written, or that people claimed authorship at the time they were written to add value to the text. I don't think anything in the article you linked really addresses it, instead of hunting for straw men.

KingGorilla wrote:

What does this have to do with friend chicken now?

Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day derailed the political dialogue of the US, so a derail on the topic of CFA-Day seems entirely appropriate.

Nomad wrote:

We are all broken. Every one of us. That is the main premise of the Gospel.

So why deny rights to a certain group of people for being broken, if we're all broken?

KingGorilla wrote:

What does this have to do with friend chicken now?

It never had anything to do with chicken. That's the best part about religious battles. They can ruin anything, including this nutritious meal.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/KFC_Double_Down_%22Sandwich%22.jpg/220px-KFC_Double_Down_%22Sandwich%22.jpg)