Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In fact, the substance of calgaryborn's post is this:

Does not compute.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I answered #1. You don't like the answer, but I did answer it. You keep asking the question, and all it is doing is trying to aggravate me.

#2: I've had to deal with idiots who think I'm a bigot just because I have a principled position, and people who think that (all) Christians are to blame because a definition is undergoing a political attack. As a Christian, it is much more difficult to openly practice my faith due to attacks like this. Attacks that miss the point in my mind. The fact that 90% of responses that are in this thread are anti-Christian is a telling point. The fact is that I am NOT an evangelical. Yet it still affects me.

#3. I answered that too. I don't trust that it will be left at that, even if I agreed that the definition could be changed.

#4. Actual losses? Aside from the ones I've pointed out in question #2? And question #3? Well, I'm still married if that's what you are asking. To a good woman who actually DOES believe in gay marriage, I might add. BTW, it's the same question as #2.




The only question I didn't answer before was "how does this affect you personally". Honestly, I didn't what point that was supposed to make, other than to bait me. Starving children in Africa don't affect me, so I shouldn't get involved there, right? How does this affect YOU personally, that you are willing to get involved? It's just not relevant.

White Doors?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I'm not sure if supporting free speech is enough to be called "an act of righteousness".

[Kipperriffic]

Stupid show-off move - *look at me I am standing by this sandwich company!"
who does that?
If he wants to have his mind stuck in the dark ages why should we care?

[SeeBass]

[MrMastodonFarm]

Modern Family!

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

That is a really gay shirt.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You should worry about this because beginning with our Saviour and on through the centuries christians and specifically the gospel has been recieved by a few and despised by many.

The church has thrived on persecution so much so that it has become an especially effective propaganda tool for any group that might hope to distinguish their version of "the Gospel" as the distinctly correct one. Evangelicals have been playing this game for 200 years now, although it is more difficult to play the martyr in the face of intellectual opposition than it was for the early Christians, or the Protestant martyrs, or many of the current underground Christian churches in the Islamic world.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Are these verses not in your bible?:

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Of course the light the apostle John is talking about is Jesus the Christ. And it is that light we are to bare:

Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.


You can't argue the atheists on here and many other non-believers hate the notion of sin or accountability towards God. I can generate three pages of venom by just identifying something as a sin.

I think that depends entirely upon what you choose to identify as sin and why you do so. Jesus's own concept of "sin" was understandably informed and conformed to the ancient Jewish law that he inherited, but I expect that you are probably more often than not missing the point when studying his ethic: which I believe would tend to be much more accommodative and adaptive in accordance with his higher ideals of justice and community. I think the real issue here is actually not what constitutes "sin", but how you and I likely differ in how we would define the Gospel.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You on the other hand offend no one with your faith. That is because your dogma conforms to the world whenever there is a possibility of offence.

I certainly hope that I do not subscribe to any "dogma"! I would prefer to think that my own faith and ethic are products of how the "weightier matters of the law" in Jesus's perception might practically be applied in the modern world. I'm a big fan of evidence, and what evidence teaches us about our selves and how we ought get along in this world.

I understand that given your own Evangelically fuelled need to project a persecution complex, you are also driven by your own capacity to offend. After all, in a world in which you believe the Spirit of God manifests in the face of "persecution", offence must be something of a virtue. Well, in this day and age, it has become abundantly clear to me that this is no longer an effective means by which to expand God's Kingdom.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your bible must be pretty small with all the pages you've ripped out. You should worry that a gospel and set of books that so many have died for rather than compromise you won't risk living by. Is that light John talked about even in you?

I really do get irritated by the false dichotomy drawn from within Christian circles between those believers who "take the Bible seriously" and those who do not. Typically, the "real Christians" are those who subscribe to an unsophisticated notion of "divine inspiration" that champions a "plain reading" of the biblical text as a badge of honour, in the face of all things reasonable and clear that they are on the side of all things true and holy. The rest of us who might dare to question the historical, cultural, political or social effects on the texts, and who would grapple and struggle with their meaning and application as the world continues to change before our very eyes are somehow less "serious" about the Bible.

Give me a freaking break. I have dedicated the better part of the last twenty years to robust biblical study, and you believe my Bible to be "small"?

On the contrary, I am not the one ripping out ANY pages. My Bible still contains the stories of genocide, rape, slavery and misogyny, but unlike you and your ilk, I do not need to apologetically rewrite them into something more palatable and defensible for fear that they might jeopardize the philosophical and theological house of cards that you have erected. Unlike you, the "authority of Scripture" for me actually frees me to be a thoughtful and effective INTERPRETOR of Scripture—not to ignore my own intellect and to passively conform to my own human understanding of the text, but to intentionally pursue meaning and truth, even in those places in which such things are not obvious, and are difficult to see.

I see that you have written a lot here, and I will read through carefully and respond to everything as I get around to it. Amid preparing for an international move that takes place in two weeks, my free time is at a premium these days.

...but there should be enough there for you to chew on in the meantime.

[TorqueDog]

[Calgaryborn]

Well it looks like Homosexuals aren't too concerned about gay marriage. There was hardly any turn out for their kiss in. Maybe they decided to leave their sexual expression to the privacy of their own homes. That's fine by me. And the big plus is it doesn't require a licence!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/c...#ixzz22Zml90Lf

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well it looks like Homosexuals aren't too concerned about gay marriage. There was hardly any turn out for their kiss in. Maybe they decided to leave their sexual expression to the privacy of their own homes. That's fine by me. And the big plus is it doesn't require a licence!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/c...#ixzz22Zml90Lf

Because gay people know they can just wait a little bit longer and they'll get what they deserve. They need to embarrass themselves by rallying around a chicken restaurant.

[Inglewood Jack]

Or maybe they're not so pathetic to think that being photographed outside a fried chicken restaurant is a meaningful way to fight for their cause. Nobody will be able to change your mind which is fine, but I take comfort in the fact that long after you and I are gone, people will look back and laugh at how stupid this whole thing was and that there was any debate about it in the first place.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because gay people know they can just wait a little bit longer and they'll get what they deserve. They need to embarrass themselves by rallying around a chicken restaurant.

Heterophobic maybe?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

Or maybe they're not so pathetic to think that being photographed outside a fried chicken restaurant is a meaningful way to fight for their cause. Nobody will be able to change your mind which is fine, but I take comfort in the fact that long after you and I are gone, people will look back and laugh at how stupid this whole thing was and that there was any debate about it in the first place.

Maybe they have finally rejected those homosexual hate groups that call them out to protest businesses just because they don't share their views.

[nik-]

And what's the Chik-Fil-A's stance? We don't support your rights, but we'll take your money because capitalism trumps our bigotry. Honourable.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by nik-

And what's the Chik-Fil-A's stance? We don't support your rights, but we'll take your money because capitalism trumps our bigotry. Honourable.

I think the owner of Chik-Fil-A's stance(when asked in a radio view) was that marriage should stay as it has always been: A union of a man and a women. For him marriage is a covenant before God. It is sacred. He also doesn't believe in divorce. But, Chik-Fil-A has never been accused of discrimination in the workplace or regarding who they will serve.

[nik-]

Marriage exists independently of Christianity. The words of a book of indeterminate date written by indeterminate authors defines nothing. You live your life by a book you don't even know who wrote, or how many people wrote or changed it. I find that hilarious.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think the owner of Chik-Fil-A's stance(when asked in a radio view) was that marriage should stay as it has always been: A union of a man and a women. For him marriage is a covenant before God. It is sacred. He also doesn't believe in divorce. But, Chik-Fil-A has never been accused of discrimination in the workplace or regarding who they will serve.

marriage existed well before Christ or the Bible, God has nothing to do with it

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by nik-

Marriage exists independently of Christianity. The words of a book of indeterminate date written by indeterminate authors defines nothing. You live your life by a book you don't even know who wrote, or how many people wrote or changed it. I find that hilarious.

Marriage doesn't exist independent of Christianity for most christians. The bible was written over 1600 years with about 40 different writers.

[jayswin]

Is anyone else like me, in that they want to respond to Calgaryborn's homophobic, bigoted posts, but since textcritic is involved in the thread, you just wait for him to come along and do it better?