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

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thought you would chime in with a little more of your unbelief?

That is your response? Are you kidding me?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But, Chik-Fil-A has never been accused of discrimination in the workplace or regarding who they will serve.

Er, what? I realize fact checking has never been your strong suit, but . . .

The Cult of Chick-Fil-A (Forbes, 2007)

This article dates from 2007, by the way, well before this recent nonsense.

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

That is your response? Are you kidding me?

I know, wasn't it great? For his next act he'll accuse people of being heretics.

[Flash Walken]

Burn the Witch!

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nothing stirs my convictions for christ like imagining one guy licking another guys rusty balloon knot.

I mean, I can't get up for going to church most Sundays, but put the imagery of a loose caboose in my head and hot damn, do I feel like a chicken burger.

Let's all get together to eat sloppy disgusting chicken burgers while we communally picture two bearded dudes suckin' back schlongs.

Are you drunk?

[Flash Walken]

No?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He wasn't standing against anyone rights. Marriage is between a man and a woman in his State. He was supporting what is the law of his State. Where do you think rights come from? God? The State? Either way homosexuals don't have the right to marry in most of America.

Martin Luther King Jr. had to have a LOT of protests before black people were given the rights that they enjoy today. They had these rights, but were denied them by society and the courts. Just because these rights were not recognized by the state does not make them rights never-the-less.

It wasn't a protest against free speech. It was a protest against what was said. If millions of Americans believe that blacks are inferior, and some company owner stands up and says that blacks are inferior, I would damn well hope that millions more would stand up and protest at that company. Like Saul Alinsky having a fart-in at Eastman-Kodak. People have to stand up to bigotry and hatred.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The laws which were created to protect primarily women in marriage were formed when Europe and North America already had a well extablished christian tradition regarding marriage. The laws were intended to support extablished marriage tradition; not change them.

Having said that do you know of an earlier example of divorce law then the one found in Deut 24?

You should read about divorce and alimony on hammurabi's laws?

Is 1750BC old enough?

[Lobotroth]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thought you would chime in with a little more of your unbelief?

You're silly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Who of these three would be you most like to be in a 10-hour car ride with: BlackRedGold, Calgaryborn or Springs1?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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

It is so much more than Chick-Fil-A "not sharing their views." Chick-Fil-A can believe all they want to believe about "traditional marriage." But they monetarily back organizations that are incredibly hateful of homosexuals. Chick-Fil-A back a ton of anti-gay-rights groups, including one which was encouraging the US Government to condone Uganda's law that would kill all homosexuals.

This isn't a bunch of liberals throwing a hissy fit because someone disagrees. This is a group of people fighting for equality, and therefore protesting a company which donates money to groups that actively want to restrict their way of life in this country, as well as support the killing of their brethren in other nations.

This is a boycott, pure and simple. As customers, refusing to give money to a corporation based on their beliefs is about as basic as American rights gets. How many boycotts happened while fighting for equality for people of color?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The laws which were created to control women in marriage were formed when Europe and North America already had a well extablished christian tradition regarding marriage...

FYP.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an interesting question. I believe that laws should reflect the will of the people and to that extent christians should have equal opportunity to influence the ongoing debate.

I don't believe that the scriptures demand or expect christians to set up theocracies. Freedom of religion is a christian principle which includes freedom of choice. Certainly God will judge man for his choices but, neverless he allows him to make them.

God allows man to make choices. Period.
Why should a government deny said people from making choices, so long as those choices don't hurt others? Don't give me "So should a government stop people from murdering? It's free will!" Shut up, no. Not the same principle. Violence, crime, etc, they negatively affect other people. If two men love each other and want to be married, no one is actually negatively affected. No one loses property, no one is injured. Just a bunch of conservatives get their panties in a bunch.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Martin Luther King Jr. had to have a LOT of protests before black people were given the rights that they enjoy today. They had these rights, but were denied them by society and the courts. Just because these rights were not recognized by the state does not make them rights never-the-less.

It wasn't a protest against free speech. It was a protest against what was said. If millions of Americans believe that blacks are inferior, and some company owner stands up and says that blacks are inferior, I would damn well hope that millions more would stand up and protest at that company. Like Saul Alinsky having a fart-in at Eastman-Kodak. People have to stand up to bigotry and hatred.

Again, this is where the rhetoric is getting confused. It is an issue with what was said, true, but that's only a small part of it. The protest is that the money that is paid to this corporation by its clientele is donated to "pro-family" groups, some of which actively hate gay people and want to obliterate them from the planet, and, oh, hey this is America, but they want to restrict their freedom.

The religious right is demanding free speech for Chick-Fil-A, demanding that no one can take their freedom away, all the while denying said freedom to their peers.

Again, I will believe that these "traditional family" proponents actually care about families when they support a raise of the minimum wage, when they support affordable pre- and post-natal care for mothers, when they support paid maternity leave for new mothers, etc. You can talk and talk and talk about "family values," but the only "values" you're upholding are the ones that keep the straight white man ahead of the rest of us.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Do Muslims embrace same sex marriage? I think not.

What does that have to do with regards to their marriage being allowed as they are non Christians, and as such have not taken part in the Christian sacrament.? Deflect from the holes in your argument?


Ok, I'll make it clear. Thousands of non Christian unions become legalized marriages every day, in fact more than Christian ones. Why then must these unions abide by a Christian doctrine?

You have not succeeded in convincing me (a Christian) why a minority view on the definition of marriage should be important to the state's institution? They are not Christian ordained marriages? Then fine, whatever. But why should the government, who is all the people it represents, represent what the Bible says and not the people it represents?

[FlyingDonutz]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Even if the will of the people wants Islamic laws? Personally, I think religion should have no factor in laws whatsoever. I'd rather laws that respect every single person than a law made just because of religious beliefs.

So putting Christianity aside, why shouldn't 2 gays be allowed to marry?

Because the priests use scriptures to hide the real fact that it disturbs them and they see it as socially unacceptable. They need to read the whole book, not just read the stuff that makes them happy.

They are hiding themselves from the truth, I think they know they're wrong, and if they don't than clearly, they are being blinded. This is like when the Roman Catholic pope sided with Hitler, just on a less massive scale of.. WTFness. Or how about when that guy said the world was gonna end last year? Twice?

I have my own religion, though I will not put down another's beliefs, how someone believes in the Trinity is beyond me.

[FlyingDonutz]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because all the years of me living a lie will have been for nothing.

I worked hard to be able to maintain my erection twice a month so my wife doesn't think I'm gay, they should have to, too.

What the hell...?

[AR_Six]

Flash is being ironic and it's kind of mind-boggling how a couple of you have failed to pick that up, but here's me making it explicit, so... now you know.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an interesting question. I believe that laws should reflect the will of the people and to that extent christians should have equal opportunity to influence the ongoing debate.

I don't believe that the scriptures demand or expect christians to set up theocracies. Freedom of religion is a christian principle which includes freedom of choice. Certainly God will judge man for his choices but, neverless he allows him to make them.

Freedom of religion is most certainly NOT a Christian principle.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Calgaryborn's version of Christianity sounds amazing.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Calgaryborn's version of Christianity sounds convenient.

Fixed.

Either that or 'inaccurate'.

[Textcritic]

I realize this is late, but I would be remiss to neglect this:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Now I know german rationalism has been around for almost 300 years. The philosophy actually can be traced back to early in Genesis...

It.....can....???

This, I have to see: Do tell, please explain to us the fruits of "German rationalism" in the iron-age myths of Genesis.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What I don't know is what happened 50 years ago. Perhaps that is when your denomination/church went apostate. It is not suprising that once you left the faith "onced delivered unto the saints"(Jude3) that you became hostile towards it. That is a very human reaction.

The only hostility I might harbour is towards your particular brand of the Christian faith, and your representation of the faith. How can you make charges against my church without knowing what church it is that I keep membership?

Again, I think the real issue here is probably the (likely) dramatically different perceptions that you and I have of the Gospel—what it is, how it works, and what it means in today's modern society. Of course, because I am likely to reject your own very narrow interpretation of the Gospel, then it is no surprise that you would consider me "apostate". This is yet another famous fundamentalist canard: to provide only the narrowest of definitions of terms and ideas; to erect only the most rigid and inflexible boundaries; and then to insist that everyone on the outside of the ghetto you have formed is "apostate".

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your philosophy(german rationalism) has a lot to do with what you type within this thread.

You keep throwing the label around, but have yet to provide any clear indication that you know what it means. The label is practically meaningless to me—as it is to practically every other modern biblical scholar. I will invite you once again: If you have any specific criticisms of various components of my position and thinking on this issue, then state them.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

When I look at a scripture passage the question I tend to ask is: "What is God saying here?". When you look at a scripture passage the question you tend to ask is: "hath God said?"...

Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. You have not the faintest idea about how I read, consider and apply Scripture, but have blindly presumed behind your derogatory branding of my position in accordance with "German rationalism" that my hermeneutic and methodology is somehow less "inspired" or "orthodox" than your own.

Quite to the contrary, when I approach Scripture, I tend to ask, first: "What did this mean"? Only upon arriving at a close approximation of the author's intent do I feel competent enough to proceed with exploring the text's developing function. Arriving at what a text meant for the author requires very thoughtful deliberation about his identity, his circumstances, his influences, and his own apparent goals. It is a difficult taks and one that no biblical scholar takes lightly, but this is absolutely fundamental for a starting point in any serious biblical study.

Second, I ask: "How did this text develop"? There is that word again, as "meaning" in Scripture was not some arbitrary one-time event, but in the case of most of these texts, there is a well worn history of interpretation that usually takes some surprising turns as far mor religious people than you or I from centuries past grappled with their own sacred texts. This is what I consider my heritage—it is the interpretive journey of my predecessors that informs my own place in the text, and how the text works in my world.

Third, I ask: "Why is this text important"? While I believe that the Bible contains the whole counsel of God, surely there are some parts that bear special consideration, while others are historically, culturally, and morally obsolete. It is precisely why any modern Christian will gravitate towards the apologetic artistry of the Epistle of Hebrews before sifting through the minutia of Leviticus.

Finally, I ask: "After all of this, how does this passage expand my understanding of God and his Kingdom?" The "word of God" is not some spoken or written word—it is a mindset; a worldview; a manifesto. Of course, not all texts reflect God's word evenly—some are inordinately flummoxed by an excess of cultural, religious, or political baggage. This is where biblical study is difficult, and it is at this point that I proceed with trepidation and some uncertainty.

THAT is how it is done.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The questions are different and result in vastly different interpretations of scriptures. I approach the scriptures as a believer; You approach the scriptures as just another book.

No! I approach the Scriptures as someone who is REALLY interested in how they can possibly be meaningful and relevant in a day and age that has expanded and changed so far beyond the time for which these texts were produced. If the Bible were "just another book" then I might approach it as you do and merely flatly demand from it some sort of arbitrary meaning. But it is NOT just another book—it is a very ancient and complicated collection of numerous books that will not simply conform to some benign impression of what you think it might mean.

More later...

[saskflames69]

If you think about it, most fast food sandwiches are greasy meat between two buttered buns. Don't tell me Chick-Fil-A has been selling what they hate all these years without realizing it.