Chick-Fil-A under fire again

Why am I back in this? And why am I back only to make the following comment?

Slavery was a biblically based principle too, maybe CFA's labor model needs closer scrutiny. (I can't wait to see what Steve H does with this one...)

Ok, I've got more...

The point being, just because the Bible says so, doesn't make it right. This is clear in practice as modern Christians pick and choose which "biblically based principles" they elect to follow. Don't believe me? When was the last time you killed your own cow because your neighbor's cow died from falling in hole you dug? When was the last time you destroyed your water jug because a lizard died in it? Do you require your wife or girlfriend to leave the city when they are menstruating? The Bible says you have to. Sometimes biblically based principles no longer apply and we can let them go. Like slavery, and homophobia, and ostracizing menstruating women and smashing water jugs....

Historically speaking the Bible (OT primarily) was a survival guide for a nomadic culture (NT is more of a propaganda pamphlet). Of course you are going to promote heterosexual sex to your people, you need the population! You need people to hunt for food, and farm, and run defense against predators. Too much homosexuality and the population starts looking thin. But to enforce the rules you need a Higher Power to generate compliance, so you make homosexuality "immoral" (read "against God") and threaten damnation or what have you. It is good social management. You also make rules about not having sex with the farm animals and not touching people with skin disease or touching people while they are taking a dump (its all in there kids, brush up on your Mosaic Law). Heck to be safe you require menstruating women to leave the village because they are unclean! When you are a small population, you need to create means of control. A vengeful God trumps any secular punishment you can come up with. I doubt "morality" was even in question.

And don't get me started on which translation of the Bible we're going with....

I tried to get out, but you pulled me back in....

Ronnie, I appreciate you.

As a person with a lowly B.A. in Religion from Centre College, I don't dare chime in, because what do I know? Either way, you did a fine job. And I'm not even going to ask to see your diploma or cassock to prove you know what you're talking about.

Not for me to say.

I'm just pointing out that facile arguments will not change 2000 years of Christian theology. .

Maybe you're right, but anything that starts moving us in that direction is a plus. It's 2012 and we're arguing about what God (a concept created by man) thinks about people's idea of marriage (another concept created by man). It might be time to reconsider whether our superstitions/beliefs are helping or holding us back.

Even predominantly Muslim nations have realized that the integration of their religion into every aspect of their lives had kept them from advancing socially, economically and technologically as quickly as western countries.

But at least people become better educated with each generation. Some of these silly views will disappear over time.

2000 years of Christian theology. You're probably not as conversant in that topic as you think you are.

Come on! I did say "probably".

Not for me to say.

I'm just pointing out that facile arguments will not change 2000 years of Christian theology. You're probably not as conversant in that topic as you think you are.

I've been thinking about this statement. "Not for me to say." It actually is for you to say since I asked your opinion. You've copped out of answering my question.

Just because you asked, doesn't mean I owe you anything. I only entered the conversation to point out that there are reasons to oppose same sex marriage other then hate or bigotry. I do not wish to enter an argument about whether Jesus would support it or not. If you wish to have that discussion, I suggest you have it with someone who actually opposes same sex marriage and justifies it with the teachings of Jesus.

BTW, Who's the troll now?

The rest of what you wrote infers that you are more conversant in that topic than I am

Where did I ever give you that impression?

so I'll ask again: Do you think Jesus Christ would actively work to keep gay couples from getting married?

So I'll answer again. I'm still not interested in discussing Jesus, because he has nothing to do with my point.

But you keep on deciding who is and who isn't a "fake" Christian. Maybe you could start an Is or Ain't List. Begin with Pope Benedict XVI, is or ain't a "real" Christian? You can work down from there.

Not for me to say.

I'm just pointing out that facile arguments will not change 2000 years of Christian theology. .

Maybe you're right, but anything that starts moving us in that direction is a plus. It's 2012 and we're arguing about what God (a concept created by man) thinks about people's idea of marriage (another concept created by man). It might be time to reconsider whether our superstitions/beliefs are helping or holding us back.

Even predominantly Muslim nations have realized that the integration of their religion into every aspect of their lives had kept them from advancing socially, economically and technologically as quickly as western countries.

But at least people become better educated with each generation. Some of these silly views will disappear over time.

You might be right, I'm just saying there are plenty of people who disagree with you that aren't haters or bigots.

Besides, just how enlightened is the effort bring this era of enlightenment when tactics include shunning, shaming, indictments of hate and bigotry, accusations of incitement to murder and lynching, and on top of all that, arguing that folks are too stupid to even understand their own beliefs?

[Robin Garr]

2000 years of Christian theology. You're probably not as conversant in that topic as you think you are.

Come on! I did say "probably".

I wasn't pop-eyeing at the "probably." I was riffing on the broad assertion about Christian theology. But then, sort of like Antonia only different, I'm only two-thirds of the way to the Master of Divinity at a mainline seminary, so what do I know?

I tried to get out, but you pulled me back in....

No problem here Ronnie. You are doing much better than me!

I wasn't pop-eyeing at the "probably." I was riffing on the broad assertion about Christian theology. But then, sort of like Antonia only different, I'm only two-thirds of the way to the Master of Divinity at a mainline seminary, so what do I know?

I'm smart enough to know that I'm not very smart. It's funny. The older I get the less smart I get.

In this thread you have presumed to tell other Christians whether their beliefs are okay or not. Judge away!

But, I think there are smarter people than you, who have studied theology longer than you, and yet somehow, also disagree with you. God has many faces (unsupported assumption on my part). I'm not sure a single human mind can contain the infinity that is God. But maybe, all of us together can. So, I for one step lightly when judging another's theological beliefs. I am smart enough not to do that...

...most of the time.

[Robin Garr]

In this thread you have presumed to tell other Christians whether their beliefs are okay or not. Judge away!

That's not exactly right. But you lose credibility when you consistently refuse to respond to invitations to compare this with the many Christian denominations that found a hermeneutical basis for slavery, and later for racial segregation. There comes a time when the right thing to do is to say, as Luther said, "Here I stand."

In this thread you have presumed to tell other Christians whether their beliefs are okay or not. Judge away!

That's not exactly right. But you lose credibility when you consistently refuse to respond to invitations to compare this with the many Christian denominations that found a hermeneutical basis for slavery, and later for racial segregation. There comes a time when the right thing to do is to say, as Luther said, "Here I stand."

I don't think it is my place to defend any particular Christian creed from another. I have a very limited interest in these topics, as I've tried to explain, probably poorly. How do I damage my credibility by choosing my battles?

Anyway your comment interests me somewhat, so I'm amenable to a meta discussion along these lines if you so desire.

I understand your point about Christian justifications for slavery, and at least for tolerance of segregation. We probably both agree that these justifications were ex post facto rationalizations.

So me, you, and Luther have all seen that Christians can be fallible. Now, the question is how do you know when you are wrong? Do you even ask yourself if you could be the one who is wrong?

How many Reformations failed before and since Luther? I guess the number of denominations can give us a clue. Every denomination is like a sign post pointing to another doctrinal disagreement. Is there only one single denomination that has the "true faith"? What are the odds that you just happen to be on that branch?

And how do you decide that another branch is so wrong that they must be demonized? How did Luther decide? Divine inspiration? Does the cause of same sex marriage originate with divine inspiration? How do we find out? Wager of battle? There were rules for that at least.

[Robin Garr]

So me, you, and Luther have all seen that Christians can be fallible. Now, the question is how do you know when you are wrong? Do you even ask yourself if you could be the one who is wrong?

How many Reformations failed before and since Luther? I guess the number of denominations can give us a clue. Every denomination is like a sign post pointing to another doctrinal disagreement. Is there only one single denomination that has the "true faith"? What are the odds that you just happen to be on that branch?

And how do you decide that another branch is so wrong that they must be demonized? How did Luther decide? Divine inspiration? Does the cause of same sex marriage originate with divine inspiration? How do we find out? Wager of battle? There were rules for that at least.

You use a lot of words. Let me try to sum it up in a few, because this one is easy: if there is a dispute, and one side is arguing for inclusiveness while the other would reject (or even, in the case of some hate groups, kill) other people, the choice to me seems clear and unambiguous. This was true of African-Americans, of women and of gay men and lesbians, a list meant to be representative but not necessarily exhaustive.

The ideology of money spoke this evening at the Chick Fil A on Bardstown Rd and the Gene Snyder this evening. The line of cars wrapped around Kohl's parking lot and well onto Bardstown Rd.

The ideology of money spoke this evening at the Chick Fil A on Bardstown Rd and the Gene Snyder this evening. The line of cars wrapped around Kohl's parking lot and well onto Bardstown Rd.

Yep, we've got a long, long way to go. Sad, really.

Did anyone here go (or know someone who went) to the Woolworth's Lunch Counter Support and Appreciation Day back in 1960? Oh, wait...

And for those out there supporting free speech today, I'll be burning American Flags and Bibles this weekend in my front yard. I know I'll see you all there to support my right to do so! Heck, bring any old Christmas creches you might have lying about, we'll toss those on the pyre!

And for those out there supporting free speech today, I'll be burning American Flags and Bibles this weekend in my front yard. I know I'll see you all there to support my right to do so! Heck, bring any old Christmas creches you might have lying about, we'll toss those on the pyre!

You are right in saying that you can do this, there's no law that says you can't. Others may not agree with that like the situation we've been discussing for 17 pages but you have every right to do what you mentioned.