Chick-Fil-A under fire again

Ah, yes, but much like the game "telephone" each time we interpret we get further from the original source and therefore the original meaning or intention. Like a copy of a copy of a copy. Things become vague and hard to read.

Going back to the oldest "original" language we have something written in is the best way to discern the "original" meaning of something, if that is even possible. It would be much easier if God would just drop back by for a minute and clarify things, but he seems reluctant or unable to do so. In that event, we need the original text, but we don't have that, so we have to take the next earliest translation.

Any English translation of the Bible, the Torah, or just the Pentateuch, is highly suspect and open to wild variation. The more recent the worse, with a few notable exceptions that strive for "original meaning." "Thou shalt not kill" isn't "kill" it's "murder" and is even more specific than that in its "original" form. Before it got to English, the Bible went through a minimum three other languages. How accurate can something like that expect to be?

"But Theology and Scriptural studies are hard and take time and I need to watch Mad Men or Real Housewives of Calaveras County (HA!), I don't have time to learn the inner workings of my faith. I'll just trust what someone else says and assume that is true because it sounds right and they quoted the Bible and the Bible is the Word of God."
I'm not saying that this is typical of anyone here, most of you good folks seem like you value knowledge and education. I'm reflecting the general attitude I see in most "religious types" who get on a bandwagon like CFA's without really knowing what they are talking about. (If you don't believe me I'll give you my mom's phone number) Scriptural studies are hard, they do take time, but when your soul is in question it might be worth the time. If that doesn't work, then what about looking out of your depth when you get into a discussion like this one? If I were trying to defend my faith and my beliefs, I would like to be well armed for the defense.

But I'm off on my soapbox again and this thread is supposed to be about selling chicken sandwiches to fund the oppression of the LGBT community, not seminary studies...

Which ones are the bigoted haters again?

These:
What is Marriage?
The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious

Or these:
Chick Filet Bomb Threats
Chick-Fil-A Vandalism

Given this thread, seems fair associating pro same-sex marriage supporters with random crimes too. Sauce for the goose, etc.

Steve H, as long as we are willing to concede that each side has radical fanatics, point taken.

Steve H, as long as we are willing to concede that each side has radical fanatics, point taken.

Ronnie, you aren't the guilty party this time.

Steve H, as long as we are willing to concede that each side has radical fanatics, point taken.

Ronnie, you aren't the guilty party this time.

"this time?" I must be doing something wrong...

@Charles : I don't disagree. Translating ancient languages is a challenging proposition at best, which is why I leave it up to people much smarter than me. (Though 16 years of Catholic schools taught me a little). The translations I used and that many secular biblical scholars use looked for instances of those words in other writings of the time period instead of just attempting a direct break down of the word (which is linguistically a poor way to translate anything). If you use direct break downs, the word mandate (for example) may have a very different meaning to future translators than how we use it today. You must also look at those words in the context of their time period. This is true when exploring any historical document. For example, I doubt our early leaders had shoulder mounted, laser guided surface to air missiles in mind then they wrote the Second amendment, even though these are technically arms that can be born.

Which is all why it upsets me when people read a passage from an ancient text that has been translated dozens of times by dozens of people to mean all kinds of different things and then use it to condemn others.

@Steve : Thanks man. I agree with you that any threats towards or attempts to censor Mr. Cathy undermine the very cause those people seek to advance through their actions. Extremism in any form is never a good thing.

While I won't jump into the CFA controversy, I have done a small amount of study of religions and the Christian are not alone in the multiple interpretations of the main book of their religious principles:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120729/NEWS01/307290049/-1/7daysarchives/Retired-U-L-professor-Riffat-Hassan-revealing-feminist-side-Quran?nclick_check=1



The Quran also has many interpretations, so each believer may be using a different version - explains a lot about zealots of every persuasion.....

[Robin Garr]

Here's another link to what I thought was a good, solid discussion of the whole issue. On the one hand it calls for listening to each other. On the other hand, it offers a sound defense against "false equivalency."

The headline is very much Not Safe For Work, if you have a nanny workplace. The rest of the article is fine, however. I got this link from a couple of seminarians.

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

[Robin Garr]

Another very good post that puts things in perspective:

http://benirwin.wordpress.com/2012/08/0 ... -neighbor/

Presented without comment.

Are bisexuals the forgotten voices in this debate?

I'm pretty sure they are the B in LGBT...

[Robin Garr]

I'm pretty sure they are the B in LGBT...

Dang! I always though that was "Barbarians."

"Barbies"

I'm pretty sure they are the B in LGBT...

Dang! I always though that was "Barbarians."

LOL!