Chick-Fil-A under fire again

Perhaps; but it's a great deal like the White Citizens Councils that quietly relied on the Klan to get the dirty work done. Animus is clearly defined and easy to recognize.

I don't see any useful analogue between same sex marriage and racism. Clearly, this is our main point of disagreement.

You could ask Matthew Shepard, or his survivors. Or even talk to these nice folks right here in the Derby City:
http://www.wave3.com/story/19050020/fam ... hate-crime

Can you explain how any of that is related to opposition to same sex marriage? I'm sure it was at the top of the minds of the perpetrators of those crimes.

Seriously, this is odious slander.

Understood, but how many of the "Free Speech Defenders" at CFA yesterday will show up at my house this weekend to support that right? I'll give you $5 for each one.

Yeah, kind of like the "No Government Interference" folks want to control what I do in my bedroom.

Are we politicizing so much of our society that we're now moving one step closer toward labeling businesses as "Conservative" or "Liberal", etc...there are historical precedents to this, and the outcome is usually not very good.

Understood, but how many of the "Free Speech Defenders" at CFA yesterday will show up at my house this weekend to support that right? I'll give you $5 for each one.

Yeah, kind of like the "No Government Interference" folks want to control what I do in my bedroom.

What they mean by no "government interference," is that they don't want the government to get in the way of Big Business making big profits on the back of exploiting workers and consumers, bullying smaller competitors, and doing whatever other unethical measures it takes. Those folks don't care about your individual rights. The only rights they want you to have are the ones that require you to buy more of their stuff. Heck, by imposing moral imperatives on you, they can more easily herd you toward the products they want you to buy!

Wow, this CFA thing has really riled up my soapbox.

Are we politicizing so much of our society that we're now moving one step closer toward labeling businesses as "Conservative" or "Liberal", etc...there are historical precedents to this, and the outcome is usually not very good.

I don't think so. I think this is much more of a case of a business labeling itself.

What they mean by no "government interference," is that they don't want the government to get in the way of Big Business making big profits on the back of exploiting workers and consumers, bullying smaller competitors, and doing whatever other unethical measures it takes. Those folks don't care about your individual rights. The only rights they want you to have are the ones that require you to buy more of their stuff. Heck, by imposing moral imperatives on you, they can more easily herd you toward the products they want you to buy!

Wow, this CFA thing has really riled up my soapbox.

LOL, I know.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEYwVb-6TeE

[Robin Garr]

Seriously, this is odious slander.

Why, no. No, it's not.

This was posted above by someone else, but you may not have noticed it. Permit me to re-post.

KFC Loves Gays

If Robin or anyone else is interested in sitting down and talking face-to-face with an evangelical Christian about this issue, send me a PM. I'll buy you a coffee or a beer, your choice, and we can have an honest, respectful, hate-free conversation. And it'll be a lot easier than trying to do it on teh internets.

I happen to think that it's not inconsistent to wear mixed-fiber clothing and yet believe homosexuality is wrong; and that it's not inconsistent to oppose slavery and race discrimination while not supporting gay marriage, both on biblical grounds. And yes, I think Jesus would be opposed to gay marriage. I think I can make a pretty clear and reasonable case for those from the Bible, though of course whether it'll be convincing or not is not for me to say. And if you want to show me why I'm wrong, from the Bible, I'm open to hearing that too.

I do have a master of divinity, though since it's from an evangelical/fundamentalist seminary that might not count.

Having said that, I'm not going to post in this thread any more.


P.S. I love this forum and all the interesting discussions we have. Kudos to Robin for running a place where we can exist congenially, even when things occasionally get heated.

[Robin Garr]

I do have a master of divinity, though since it's from an evangelical/fundamentalist seminary that might not count.

Absolutely not, Jeff. If you got through Hebrew, Greek and systematic theology, I don't care where you got it from, you've got my respect.

I'd love to match exegesis on the "clobber" verses with you some time. I'm pretty convinced that any reasonable historical-cultural hermeneutic reveals that both the Deuteronomistic editors and Paul were working within a frame of reference so different from modern times that it's no more useful moral guidance than the rule against mixed fabrics or shaving your beard (and indeed, in the context of Leviticus, springs from the same roots, separation of "our" ways from "their" ways). But that would better be done offline, with adult beverages or coffee if that's your preference.

I'd love to match exegesis on the "clobber" verses with you some time. I'm pretty convinced that any reasonable historical-cultural hermeneutic reveals that both the Deuteronomistic editors and Paul were working within a frame of reference so different from modern times that it's no more useful moral guidance than the rule against mixed fabrics or shaving your beard (and indeed, in the context of Leviticus, springs from the same roots, separation of "our" ways from "their" ways).

The above neatly explains why I decided to major in Religion in college.

http://www.inquisitr.com/291672/chick-f ... ru-window/. See video below. 100% class shown by Chick-Fil-A employee. Jerk like this deserves what he got

Everyone using the bible to oppose homosexuality and gay marriage needs to retake bible study. The passages most often used to condemn homosexuals and homosexuality and also gay marriage contain words that were intentionally mistranslated to mean whatever biblical scholars felt like at the time.

The passage people like to claim says that men shall not lay with men as with women because this is an abomination doesn't. The word they replaced with abomination is toevah which actually translates as "unclean" and not "an abomination". When you commit a "toevah" you must go through a ritual washing to cleans yourself. Eating pork is a toevah. As is eating shellfish. The passage also uses the word gunaikos which doesn't mean "woman" it means "wife". The direct translation of that passage isn't "men shouldn't sleep with men because it is an abomination" it is "men can't cheat on their wives with other men because that is also unclean." Most secular scholars agree the passage was actually saying that cheating on your wife with another man is also cheating. No worse than doing so with a woman.

Also, the greek word arsenokoitai is replaced with homosexual when it really meant male and female prostitutes often used during Greek worship rituals. The final term that is used to mean homosexuals is malakoi which actually just means effeminate. I don't know about you guys, but I know plenty of heterosexual effeminate men and a few very macho gay men.

It's important to note that those words each only occur only one or two times in the original Hebrew and Greek writings. The words for adultery for example, occur 47 times. Lying over 70. Murder close to 40. Sounds like maybe it wasn't quite as big a deal as people make it out to be, even if the translations were correct. Also, the Greek word for a man-boy pairing, "erastes-eromenos" never appears at all. Neither does the word paiderastia which means male love of men and boys.

It also never mentions women sleeping with other women, as apparently this was Ok. Which I agree with.

It's should be mentioned that King James, who commissioned the translation that most people use today was widely known to cheat on his wife with men. Many people think church scholars of the time inserted homosexuality into the bible in a failed attempt to get him to stop it.

Not knowing what kind of chicken sandwich chaos would be unleashed later on.

Just something else to chew on while you enjoy your waffle fries.

Chris I've been a fan since your bourbon post. Keep up the good work!

P.S. I actually like Weller and Booker's doesn't hurt.

Everyone using the bible to oppose homosexuality and gay marriage needs to retake bible study. The passages most often used to condemn homosexuals and homosexuality and also gay marriage contain words that were intentionally mistranslated to mean whatever biblical scholars felt like at the time.

I've tried to stay out of the theological/biblical debate, but I'll protest here. The interpretations you suggest are certainly viable, but it is just not the case the interpretations are as cut and dried as you presented them. I am not suggesting that this means the more traditional interpretations are cut and dried. This is not a matter that can decided based only on linguistic analysis. Knowing Greek and Hebrew is really helpful in such matters, but knowing the original languages does not remove the complexity of the interpretative process.