Chick-Fil-A partners with anti-gay group

1. He ARGUABLY was talking about homosexuality. But given the context, it seems he was speaking of having sex with underage boys...not consenting adults.

2. depends on which books you think paul actually wrote...but i'll tel you that what paul wrote when he said, (paraphrased) "there is no gentile/jew, man/woman distinction etc" would have been WILDLY liberal for his day. he affirmed women as leaders in the church.

3. literal reading of the bible is actually a relatively new thing...like 19th and 20th century new. the whole fundamentalist movement is relatively new in Church history.

 

The OT gives context for the NT. There was a ton of debate when compiling the Bible as to whether the OT was even necessary...ultimately, it was decided that it provided context....for lots of things that described Jesus and what he was ultimately about.

 

Ehh, there is a very thin line between preaching against homosexuals and homophobia. While I agree there is a distinction, the distinction is about the is very minor and its hard to tell the difference between homophobes and people who just don't condone those values...

 

I disagree about Paul's attitude towards women. Paul had women as leaders and instrumental to starting his churches.

 

That's actually in the new testament. psalm 137:9

the term 'homosexual' wasn't even coined until the late 19th century. I wonder how it has even made it's way into the bible. I'm not saying that gay sex didnt happen back then, but that 'homosexuality' was foreign to writers of those times. hell, even heterosexuality, bi-sexuality or any sort of sexual orientation at all would have been a vague concept without the advent of modern psychology and sociology. I wonder why christians waste so much time on 'homosexuality' given it's paucity in the bible. it obviously wasn't as important to them back then.

and yes, I'm aware of my previous and embarrassing diatribe regarding this topic. but I opened up a few books and realized I was an idiot. (looking at you BJ)

eh. he basically blamed women for creating sin. would not allow them to speak in church and demanded them to submit to their husbands. Paul was an extremely odd fella. women are just the beginning of historical idiocy and general weirdness.

 

I don't know much about this PA Family Institute Group, but when did wanting to protect the notion and concept of traditional marriage equate to homophobia?

I think a lot of these conservative groups go about the issue of marriage kind of silly, and that automatically invoking the Bible or whatnot isn't really what the argument is about. Certainly there are many groups guilty of homophobia. As Max said many years ago on this BBS, we should really be focusing on fixing marriage first before we start on the issue of same sex marriage. If marriage is something we value as a society, and we seek to lower the divorce rate, then a society is apt to think what exactly marriage is if it wants to help support it. At the same time, justice demands homosexuals be given access to their loved ones, protection against hate crimes, tax breaks, etc.

The question of same sex marriage is probably one of the hardest and most controversial in legal academia. Articles like this don't help the cause for either side.

 

wanting marriage to be between a man and a woman is equatable to not wanting colored people to vote.

it's a civil rights issue, it's hatred, it's not fair.

 

I think that's a vast over generalization. You have to assume that sexual orientation is something that isn't chosen and that there is no tradition of sexual morality (for better or worse).

Just wanting to posit your philosophy that sexual orientation should be given the same status as racial class is a brute taking of the issue without any real opportunity for debate. That's in part why I think it's best to let democracy decide the issue, and if attitudes change over time, democracy will do the same.

 

I stopped going there once they started God-blessing me in the drive through. That really annoyed me. I'll take the chicken sandwich, you can keep the blessings... thanks. As a non-Christian, it's one thing for a friend or acquaintance of yours to want to talk about the role Jesus plays in their life and their personal relationship with Jesus but I find it really freaking rude for some perfect stranger at a chicken place to start God blessing me like they're doing me a favor. The last time it happened I felt like parking in their drive through to create a mile long line of huffy moms with hungry kids in minivans waiting for their chicken and enumerating the reasons why I don't care to be blessed by their imaginary savior. Namaste... b****.

 

It is Chick-Fil-A, not Gay-Fil-A.

 

You don't feel it's discriminatory? Marriage does have alot of legal and financial benefits.

 

oh boy, i bet a lot of the franchisees aren't too happy with this.

 

so is Obama "rabidly anti-gay" since he shares this group's position on marriage?

 

Like I said, there's other ways to get folks benefits that justice requires.

 

No, but nobody can be President and publicly support gay marriage. The same constraints do not exist on chicken purveyors.

 

The problem with that is the whole separate but equal issue that segregation brought about.

Separate is not equal.

 

Those are presumptions based on odd quotes here and there. If you look at his pre-meditated actions he definitely used women to establish and lead churches. I think that has to be weighed in when looking at his view on women.

I will grant you that he was an odd fellow.

 

considering Paul's overall legacy and historical position in the Bible, I think he was a boorish ******* and disregard most of his contributions to anything regarding women. eh, I guess I just got lost in pseudepigrapha.

carry on.

 

And the difference is what again? Don't say "actions" because both groups don't do anything at the ballot box unless they think they're the favors.