Chik-Fil-A Gay Fallout

[Wonktonodi]

happydolphin said:

Wonktonodi said:

happydolphin said:
To me a lot of this seems like opportunism. An opportunity to bash the christian view. It's one thing to disagree, another to step on people's rights and freedom to believe in their own morals.

I'm starting to hate this democracy.

But before I get really irritated, can someone bring up the facts I've read through the article and all I've found are claims but no quotes...

To me most of this should have happend sooner. The words mean less to me than the money to the anti gay causes.

Now as for the biblical arguments about anti gay there is so much other stuff people toss out that it makes the religion just seem hateful.

I remeber a letter someone wrote Dr Laura when she had been saying ani gay things.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

or those trying to say traditional marriage when things have constatnly changed.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl0.htm

@bold. I don't disagree.

In the link you provided (dr laura letter)

"The key to this essay is its premise, not the pedantic details of it of how it is defended. Simply put, the letter points out a logical flaw in the "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" argument: if homosexuality is wrong because it goes against God's law as outlined in the Bible, why aren't any number of activities now viewed as innocuous but once regarded as unacceptable also offenses against God's law? How can one part of Leviticus be deemed as etched in stone when other parts have been discarded as archaic?"

I've explained this to Bouzane. Unless something is superceded in the new testament, it's largely unchanged.

 

As such, though most of the mosaic law is superceded in terms of judgement due to Christ's display of mercy and grace towards Mary Magdaleine, so would smiting your neighbor for having issues with the smell of the sacrifice be superceded. Not only that, but the New Testament is clear in that Christ has become the sole sacrifice to be offered to God as of his death, and as such, no more sacrifices are required. This was confirmed by the tearing of the veil to the holy of holies in the temple on the day of crucifixion, as sign that the work of the priests was done away with.

Similar logic can apply to many of the fallacies brought up.

 

but does it cover them all? and is there some clear place that covers all the ones that are kept and those that aren't? or are they all over and some just assumed?