Personally, I really don't care about Chic-whatever. I also don't agree with their message, but I do heavily believe in our 1st Amendment right. If you don't like it, don't eat there. However, I don't think backlash towards them is unjustified. It all boils down to the 1st Amendment.
I don't eat chicken anyway :P
Everyone needs to play Lost Odyssey! Any opposition to this and I will have to just say, "If it's a fight you want, you got it!"
So, you quote me teachings from Jewish texts that predate the existence of Christ?
Yes, and?
You quote me a line that states homosexuality is abnormal while making no reference to same-sex marriage?
I have no idea what you're talking about... the abnormality was about Paul, though not walking with Christ, a man who martered Christians, was a late apostle. I don't have the time nor the patience to explain this to you. Ultimately what all this means is that biblically speaking his words are divinely inspired as if the words of Christ himself (as they are animated by the same spirit). So since Paul teaches that homosexuality is against the will of God, you question was "Where does Christ condemn any aspect of homosexuality", I provided you with an answer. But I'm closing the door because I fear I will offend some friends and I don't have the patience to go over these basics. Please do your own research on the matter.
Again, there is no basis for opposing same-sex marriage in the teachings of Christ.
See above.
Also, It doesn't matter what the Bible claims, marriage was never a religious institution and the Church has no right trying to define it or use it as a political tool.
Who gives you the right to make such a bold claim. The church certainly has a right to define it, as it is their opinion, their belief, their point of view, as much as it is your opinion that marriage can support same-sex relationships. Stop being hypocritical.
If any religious group could claim the right to define marriage it would be the Jews and three out of four branches of the Jewish faith support same-sex marriage.
Indeed, and they are not following the word of God. Everyone has a right to claim a definition, not all are correct. There is ultimately only 1 true definition, no matter how broad it may be.
Again, opposing same-sex marriage has no moral basis, only bigotry and ignorance.
This sentence is plagued with what it condemns. I have stated my views without being neither ignorant nor a bigot. Proof that this claim is false, by counter-exapmle.
As such, there is no "opportunism and stomping on freedom of faith" as there is no foundation for such views in either the Christian or Jewish faiths (with the exception of Ultra-Orthodox Judiasm).
Even if there were no foundation of such a view in the Christian or the Jewish faith, as an individual with a right to my morality and beliefs, there is "opportunism and stomping on freedom of faith". As such, the stomping on freedom of faith is not dependent on any one religion, be it named or not.
Please follow the link I provided, you can learn about the teachings of Christ unadulterated by the Judiasm and Paganism that permeate the "Christian" Bible.
My above post explains this. Also, Christ's teaching as is "A man shall leave his father and his ? (mother) and be united with his ? (wife)."
Mosaic: Gen 2: 24.
Jesus: Mark 10:7
Paul the apostle: Ephesians 5:31
My point about the Jewish teachings was that they are not Christian, I thought that was obvious. Any Jewish teachings that Christ believed to be relevant he simply reiterated. Anything that was not relevant he did not. If everything that was taught before Christ was relevant to him and his philosophy then he would have supported dietary laws when he actually made statements to the contrary. If it wasn't a lesson taught by Christ, it isn't Christian.
So, because the "condemnation" of homosexuality has "the same source" as the teachings of Christ than they are as the teachings of Christ himself? I'm not buying it, at all. Not a statement made by Christ means that it is not Christian.
Again, the Church has absolutely no right to force its own, narrow definition of marriage upon anybody else under any circumstance. This is not a religious theocracy. We shouldn't be forced to obey their "moral" construct or anybody else's.
Again, I want you to show me where Christ himself actually condemns same-sex marriage. Otherwise, there is little to no basis in Christianity to support the opposition to it.
How do personal views, not based upon the teachings found in religious texts count as faith? I can not believe in anything I want, without any foundation whatsoever, and call it a legitimate faith.
I can not understand how anything Christ says can be misconstrued into "oppose the ability of others to enjoy the same freedoms and rights as the general population". A few lines from the Old Testament certainly won't convince me otherwise.
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.
Rath said: @badgenome. Obama's half-arsed position of 'evolving views' (which was political speak for, I think any definite answer will piss somebody off) isn't the same as the position of 'only biblical marriage should be legal and we will donate money to groups who oppose gay marriage'.
I was referring to when he was Mr. Hope and Change and still said shit like this:
You mean when he says that religiously, marriage is a sacred institution but that civil unions should mirror the special benefits entailed to the "married"?
What can I do to help you be not angry, and look objectively at this situatio?
Chik-a-bro said "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' " Cathy was also quoted as saying during the interview, "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
He is only for biblically defined marriage or family unit.
Obama clearly says that he is for protecting "marriage", but that civil unions should extend the same benefits and privelages that we extend to married couples.
He said this on his change of stance, confirming what I've outlined above, "I had hesitated on gay marriage, in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient," the president said. "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs." He clearly was pointing out earlier that civil unions should have garnered the same benefits.
Contrastingly, Romney specifically commented, "And I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," Romney said during a visit to Fort Lupton. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not."
Interestingly enough, the GOP was blocking the ability for civil unions to garner the same benefits of marriage in Colorado in just the few weeks before Obama basically says, "fine, then I support same-sex marriage". Extending the rights of civil unions is too difficult. It's a complicated scenario, and the right has proven already that they don't care that it's not marriage. It's beyond a sacred issue. It's an issue of the blessed should have better rights than the sinners. I'm sorry to be so condescending, but that's what's on the table. Right wing Christians are blocking something that should be considered fairness and equal standing. They don't get to marry. That should be the end of it, correct? That's what Christians were adamantly against. Now that it's been addressed, it's still no? I hope I'm making sense here.
Anyhoo, Obama has been supporting civil unions since the beginning and equal rights for them. Getting civil unions equal rights has become increasingly difficult as GOP continues to block and kill civil union bills. I believe Obama once thought that it would be an open and shut case. I believe this because we do not interfere with the sacredness of marriage, then logically, the argument is over and we can progress, and give them the rights they are looking for. He thought wrong. So now, he simply seeks to make same-sex marriage legal, which, I think has a better chance of passing because it's fewer steps, and less confusing. A sign can be smaller that says "Pro-gay marriage" than "give the same rights for civil unions as for married couples". Ya dig?
That's all I'm going to say on the matter. I wish you wouldn't be so angry about the issue. You're a funny guy, but I think your humor is wasted on an issue like this. But perhaps it's just my own viewpoint on the matter. I just think you're wrong about your whole statement regarding Obama's "hypocrisy" and the "sheep" who follow whatever he does. I think it's pretty clear what happened.
Nightwish224 said: Personally, I really don't care about Chic-whatever. I also don't agree with their message, but I do heavily believe in our 1st Amendment right. If you don't like it, don't eat there. However, I don't think backlash towards them is unjustified. It all boils down to the 1st Amendment.
I don't eat chicken anyway :P
and isn't it also in the first amendment rights of the people saying this is wrong? or of those calling for boycotts? even the people who say they will do things to fight new locations? Just because people have the right to say things doesn't mean there can't be fall out for things they say.
My point about the Jewish teachings was that they are not Christian, I thought that was obvious.
Yes, it is obvious.
Any Jewish teachings that Christ believed to be relevant he simply reiterated. Anything that was not relevant he did not. If everything that was taught before Christ was relevant to him and his philosophy then he would have supported dietary laws when he actually made statements to the contrary. If it wasn't a lesson taught by Christ, it isn't Christian.
Nope. Anything that he did not clearly supercede with reason is biblical and as such word of God, and teaching of Christ. He endorsed all of the law and the prophets. However with respect to the law, Christ superceded it with true holiness. Read the new testament you'll understand. I won't comment any further on this we'll go over this offline if we have to.
As such, everything in the bible that Christ has not superceded with a clear reason is considered christian teaching. That's why christians read the law and the prophets, as well as the writings of the disciples of Christ. You will notice writers of the New Testament quoting Old Testament scripture quite regularly, as the example I gave you of Ephesians 5:31.
And that's appart from the teachings he reiterated, one of those being the one on marriage in Mark 10:7.
So, because the "condemnation" of homosexuality has "the same source" as the teachings of Christ than they are as the teachings of Christ himself? I'm not buying it, at all. Not a statement made by Christ means that it is not Christian.
Yes, unless they are superceded by a greater revelation. And that's besides those he reiterated word for word. It's a matter of fact that Christ quoted scripture because he believed it to hold the power of God (see his temptation in the desert).
Again, the Church has absolutely no right to force its own, narrow definition of marriage upon anybody else under any circumstance. This is not a religious theocracy. We shouldn't be forced to obey their "moral" construct or anybody else's.
Who said anything about forcing?? On the contrary it is the opposite lobby that is forcing it down everyone else's throat if this incident has any bearing on the matter. By God. The anti-christian sentiment is strong in this one. Why point fingers to the church in this matter and not to those for gay marriage? Why can they push their agenda and not those of christian belief? What hypocrisy, I despite it.
Again, I want you to show me where Christ himself actually condemns same-sex marriage. Otherwise, there is little to no basis in Christianity to support the opposition to it.
Through the apostle Paul animated by the spirit of Christ. Christianity is based off of old testament scripture, the teachings of Christ and the writings of the apostles. It doesn't matter whether Christ said it himself or not when it comes to christian doctrine.
How do personal views, not based upon the teachings found in religious texts count as faith? I can not believe in anything I want, without any foundation whatsoever, and call it a legitimate faith.
That's your prerogative, but I terribly disagree. A person does not need a religion to have a moral code, or a sense of belief. Both Christianity and atheism agree on this view.
I can not understand how anything Christ says can be misconstrued into "oppose the ability of others to enjoy the same freedoms and rights as the general population". A few lines from the Old Testament certainly won't convince me otherwise.
Why the quotation marks, I never said anything of the matter.
So, you quote me teachings from Jewish texts that predate the existence of Christ?
Yes, and? It was in answer to this... "Traditionally marriage treated the woman as property and wedlock was merely the exchange of goods to ensure exclusive sexual access to the newly acquired property. Are we not supposed to advance as a society?"
Don't bore me.
You quote me a line that states homosexuality is abnormal while making no reference to same-sex marriage?
I have no idea what you're talking about... the abnormality was about Paul, though not walking with Christ, a man who martyred Christians, was a late apostle. I don't have the time nor the patience to explain this to you. Ultimately what all this means is that biblically speaking his words are divinely inspired as if the words of Christ himself (as they are animated by the same spirit). So since Paul teaches that homosexuality is against the will of God, your question was "Where does Christ condemn any aspect of homosexuality", I provided you with an answer. But I'm closing the door because I fear I will offend some friends and I don't have the patience to go over these basics. Please do your own research on the matter.
Again, there is no basis for opposing same-sex marriage in the teachings of Christ.
See above.
Also, It doesn't matter what the Bible claims, marriage was never a religious institution and the Church has no right trying to define it or use it as a political tool.
Who gives you the right to make such a bold claim. The church certainly has a right to define it, as it is their opinion, their belief, their point of view, as much as it is your opinion that marriage can support same-sex relationships. Stop being hypocritical.
If any religious group could claim the right to define marriage it would be the Jews and three out of four branches of the Jewish faith support same-sex marriage.
Indeed, and they are not following the word of God. Everyone has a right to claim a definition, not all are correct. There is ultimately only 1 true definition, no matter how broad it may be.
Again, opposing same-sex marriage has no moral basis, only bigotry and ignorance.
This sentence is plagued with what it condemns. I have stated my views without being neither ignorant nor a bigot. Proof that this claim is false, by counter-example.
As such, there is no "opportunism and stomping on freedom of faith" as there is no foundation for such views in either the Christian or Jewish faiths (with the exception of Ultra-Orthodox Judiasm).
Even if there were no foundation of such a view in the Christian or the Jewish faith, as an individual with a right to my morality and beliefs, there is "opportunism and stomping on freedom of faith". As such, the stomping on freedom of faith is not dependent on any one religion, be it named or not.
Please follow the link I provided, you can learn about the teachings of Christ unadulterated by the Judiasm and Paganism that permeate the "Christian" Bible.
My above reply explains this. Also, Christ's teaching as is "A man shall leave his father and his ? (mother) and be united with his ? (wife)."
Mosaic: Gen 2: 24.
Jesus: Mark 10:7
Paul the apostle: Ephesians 5:31
FoS Happy
What's wrong, can't you point out where Christ denounces same-sex marriage? He may have referred to marriage as a man being with a woman, but did he also extend the benefits that they currently enjoy? Did he ever say that the married should be held in higher regard than the gay? Because that's our system now. One in which the married enjoy special benefits over even the single people! Married people pay LESS taxes than I do simply because they are married. There is obviously a flaw in this system.
And Christ is literally nowhere in the argument. He never said married should be above, nor did he say gays should be condemned, nor did he say gays shouldn't enjoy the same rights. In fact, he's said nearly the opposite of all those things.
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.
"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.
