|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2013 : 10:53:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
But I digress, Your religion Convinced, the only true religion along with all they other wacky Religions all receive equal special standing. It's not up to the government to decide or pick a favorite. Religions' revenues and properties are tax exempt, for starters and there are other special privileges. Businesses on the other hand have none of the special privileges that religions have. That is why businesses are not permitted to claim the right to discriminate against protected groups like Religions can AND do. That is why any lawyer worth their salt will advise any gay couple wishing to sue a legally established church that they are wasting their time and money. Any Judge will throw the case out of court but not one directed at a business or company.
|
I agree religious groups have special privileges that are protected under the constitution. My personal belief is that tax exemption should not be one of them, at least property taxes. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
 |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2013 : 11:02:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
It's called living in a pluralistic society. Now of course this doesn't stop the Christian majority from trying to pass laws that allow them to break anti-discrimination laws. For instance, a few years ago in Kentucky some asshole Baptist church that owned a camp group got all uppity because Camp Quest, a camp for atheist and agnostic kids rented their facility. The Baptists went and got a law written and passed (KY House Bill 70, passed in 2000) that specifically targeted "atheists and satanists" for discrimination. I'm am so sick and tired of Christians that want to have their cake and eat it too. A bigot can refuse to let black people, or gay people, or Jewish people, or Christian people for that matter, into his or her home. That is his or her right in their private home. But as soon as that person offers to rent a room, he or she must abide by anti-discrimination laws. But for some damn reason so many people don't seem to realize that there is that line between private and public, and in some places like Kentucky the Christian majority manages to find ways around the laws. |
I agree with you here.
| Just today I was listening to the radio about how now there are cases of florists and other companies that sell services or products for weddings refusing to provide their services for gay couples. That sort of crap is WHY we have to have anti-discrimination laws to protect certain groups in the first place! |
I agree with you here as well. Christians need to make the hard choice whether to serve gay couples or shut down the business. My concern is any regulation that gets in the business of the church services. You don't think this will happen, I don't know but I hope you are right.
| If religious or other groups find themselves in a position where their deeply held views are at odds with mainstream society, they will eventually be forced to make some hard choices. Anyone who wants to participate in the larger society has to accept certain values of the larger society. There are PLENTY of mainstream values that I abhor, but I also realize that if I draw a firm line with every little thing I disagree with, I will turn myself and my family into outcasts. And some people do choose to be outcasts or isolationists - look at the Amish or people who live on communes. What we are hearing now from the Religious Right is whining about how their traditional values have fallen out of sync with mainstream values. |
Again I agree.
But hey, that won't stop bigots from kicking and screaming along the way, and trying to pass new laws so they can have more special privileges to discriminate against protected minorities, just as they did in Kentucky in 2000. Just Google "Kentucky's Religious Freedom Bill". Religious freedom my ass.
|
Has this been challenged by anybody? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2013 : 11:20:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dr Mabuse and Siberia, you make a good point. Most discrimination is through totally legal, social channels. There are all kinds of social signals we can send out to let people know whether we agree with them or not, and whether we accept them fully as a person or not. All the more reason why I don't think it is too much to ask that in our laws we protect certain groups who have a history of being disenfranchised from the most institutionalized and formal kinds of discrimination.
I also thought of another great example that illustrates why clergy won't ever be forced to officiate gay weddings: many denominations engage in sexual discrimination in their employment practices. For instance, Catholic priests can only be men. Being a Catholic priest is absolutely a type of employment. They makes their livelihood off their positions, in many case a very lucrative living. And women are prohibited from holding those positions. (The priests female counterparts, nuns, are actually required to take an oath of poverty. Something priests only have as an option, and rarely take it.) But no women ever sue the Catholic Church because because it won't let them become priests. I mean, they could try, but in America they would lose that battle pretty quick because of religious protections. I don't have a problem with those kinds of protections. If anything, allowing private religious sects to commit such types of discrimination in their practices in contrasts to the general society serves the purpose of showing how antiquated and unfair they are.
|
Do you feel the same about Hooters? They only have men bartenders and Hosts. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2013 : 13:30:54 [Permalink]
|
Convinced wrote: | We can have different interpretations of bible verses but that does not change the fact that there is one meaning to the text. Do you think the Bible is unclear on Gods stance on homosexuality? |
You weren't addressing me with this question, but I hope you won't mind me answering it.
To the first statement about the Bible having one meaning to the text - I think you need to be more specific. Do you mean to say that the author had a particular, singular meaning to convey? If so, I'd say yeah, probably that's true. But who is the author of the Bible? I'd say that the Bible has numerous authors. It is truly a collaborative work that was written over a very long period of time, which is why there are still many versions of it. With so many authors and editors over such a long period of time, it is inevitable that the Bible's meaning is multifarious. To try to draw out any single unifying narrative, meaning, and set of values is an impossible task, and rather pointless. The Bible is much more useful and interesting as a historically significant document that can be studied and discussed pretty much endlessly to help us understand the peoples and periods in history from which it emerged and had great influence. But that's all. To use it as some kind of guide for how to live one's life seems absurd to me. It is trying to force the Bible into being something it is not, and in doing so, willfully turning a blind eye to much of the context of the Bible and scholarship that has been done.
To the question over whether the Bible is clear on God's stance on homosexuality: As far as I can tell from the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God has no stance on homosexuality. There are merely 6 passages that address any kind of homosexual activity in the entire Bible. All six simultaneously condemn pagan practices or prostitution, not just gay sex. All of the ones in the Old Testament are alongside other values now regarded by just about every living Christian as antiquated (no eating shellfish, etc.) There's whole books on this subject by scholars who have explored this question over and over again. It's not like they can ever come to a definitive conclusion. The people who wrote the Bible are all dead and nobody has a direct line to God (if the Judeo-Christian God even exists.) In my view it is nothing short of arrogance to think one can know what God thinks of any random gay person or gay couple today. The more I think about this, the more ridiculous and offensive it gets to me. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/01/2013 13:31:26 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2013 : 13:40:32 [Permalink]
|
| Not that I'm any kind of fan of Christianity (I'm obviously not) it really bugs me that so many Christians and opponents to Christianity just accept that the Bible clearly takes a stance against homosexuality. Having read a lot about what theologians and Biblical scholars have said about it, I suspect that for most people that is an ignorant assumption, not a stance based on a thorough investigation. Homosexuality as it functions in today's culture mirrors nothing in the Bible because it didn't exist then. There are gay sex acts, which is simply two people of the same sex engaging in a sex act. That sort of thing takes places more frequently in prisons and other contexts where people don't have access to the opposite sex. Sex is frequently not about genuine attraction (much less romantic love) but about power, bartering, and in some cases even friendship and camaraderie. Homosexuality orientation has to do with what gender of people an individual is sexually attracted to. Love-based marriages didn't exist in the times and places where the Bible is set, and so obviously the sort of love-based gay relationships didn't either. Neither did women's equality for that matter. That's why the Bible needs to many feminist apologists to re-interpret it for these modern times. Again, the meaning of the Bible is multifarious. It is totally dependent on historical context. So to say that the Bible has anything to say about individuals who identify as gay or lesbian, or love-based gay relationships in modern society is as silly as saying the Bible has something to say about space exploration. It simply never addressed the subject because it couldn't have. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2013 : 13:52:04 [Permalink]
|
On Hooters and equality in employment - that is another legal issue. Specifically, exceptions made for bona fide occupational qualifications. The most obvious examples of this are in the fields of theater, film, and modeling. Age requirements are also allowed for certain occupations citing safety concerns.
Also, check your facts. Hooters bartenders and hosts are not required to be men. Those positions are open to both men and women, but are most typically filled by men because those positions were added as part of a settlement in a case against Hooters where two men were denied positions as waiters. There were cash payouts to some of the men who sued Hooters over discrimination. Basically Hooters took it too far and was forced to create some kind of gender balance for its employees that in the eyes of the law was considered fair.
You will NEVER see that happen with the Catholic Church. As I said, nuns all must take vows of poverty. And they can't become priests or deacons - both of which are paid positions, and often well compensated. Again, I don't think it should be any different. I'm all for religious freedom. Let the bigots be bigots, and then we can see them for what they are. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2013 : 18:12:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I do think that there is a 100% chance a lawsuit will be filed at some point. |
Anyone who files such a suit will necessarily have a fool for a lawyer.| Then we will see how it plays out. |
It will be dismissed before the ink is dry. Odds are, the ACLU will defend this hypothetical pastor pro bono, since it won't take more than five minutes of their lawyer's time.
That's why it has never happened with regard to interracial marriage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2013 : 13:49:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Convinced wrote: | We can have different interpretations of bible verses but that does not change the fact that there is one meaning to the text. Do you think the Bible is unclear on Gods stance on homosexuality? |
You weren't addressing me with this question, but I hope you won't mind me answering it. |
Not at all.
| To the first statement about the Bible having one meaning to the text - I think you need to be more specific. Do you mean to say that the author had a particular, singular meaning to convey? If so, I'd say yeah, probably that's true. But who is the author of the Bible? I'd say that the Bible has numerous authors. It is truly a collaborative work that was written over a very long period of time, which is why there are still many versions of it. With so many authors and editors over such a long period of time, it is inevitable that the Bible's meaning is multifarious. To try to draw out any single unifying narrative, meaning, and set of values is an impossible task, and rather pointless. The Bible is much more useful and interesting as a historically significant document that can be studied and discussed pretty much endlessly to help us understand the peoples and periods in history from which it emerged and had great influence. But that's all. To use it as some kind of guide for how to live one's life seems absurd to me. It is trying to force the Bible into being something it is not, and in doing so, willfully turning a blind eye to much of the context of the Bible and scholarship that has been done. |
All well and good but the Bible itself and Jesus do not have this view. I believe it to be inspired by God as Jesus did.
| question over whether the Bible is clear on God's stance on homosexuality: As far as I can tell from the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God has no stance on homosexuality. There are merely 6 passages that address any kind of homosexual activity in the entire Bible. All six simultaneously condemn pagan practices or prostitution, not just gay sex. All of the ones in the Old Testament are alongside other values now regarded by just about every living Christian as antiquated (no eating shellfish, etc.) There's whole books on this subject by scholars who have explored this question over and over again. It's not like they can ever come to a definitive conclusion. The people who wrote the Bible are all dead and nobody has a direct line to God (if the Judeo-Christian God even exists.) In my view it is nothing short of arrogance to think one can know what God thinks of any random gay person or gay couple today. The more I think about this, the more ridiculous and offensive it gets to me. |
You have to really twist the text to get this meaning.
Lev 18:22-23 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
1Tim1:8-11:We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
These are very clear as other passages are. I would like to point one thing out here. A homosexual can be a Christian. Nowhere in the gospel does it say you have to be sinless or straight to be saved. This is exactly why Jesus came, to forgive our sins. Also, homosexuals are not condemned just because they are gay but because they have sinned apart from being gay.
Unrelated but if you read the book of Hebrews is explains why Christians can eat shellfish today. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2013 : 13:56:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
On Hooters and equality in employment - that is another legal issue. Specifically, exceptions made for bona fide occupational qualifications. The most obvious examples of this are in the fields of theater, film, and modeling. Age requirements are also allowed for certain occupations citing safety concerns.
Also, check your facts. Hooters bartenders and hosts are not required to be men. |
I did not mean to imply this but that men cannot be waiters.
| You will NEVER see that happen with the Catholic Church. As I said, nuns all must take vows of poverty. And they can't become priests or deacons - both of which are paid positions, and often well compensated. Again, I don't think it should be any different. I'm all for religious freedom. Let the bigots be bigots, and then we can see them for what they are. |
Not all christians are Catholic. I don't care about the Catholic Church other than its misled members.
Also, you are part of the problem and no better than the christians you call bigots. You call people bigots because they have different moral values than you when you stand on nothing more than your own thoughts about morality. You have no standard to call anyone a bigot. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2013 : 05:45:16 [Permalink]
|
Sounds like Tim 1:8-10 is just more Christians deciding which laws are "Sound doctrine" for everyone else. Yet more ignoring of their own rules about minding the laws of the land.
Found this whilst rereading 1Tim, ;)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.--1 Tim.2:11-12
Shut up and listen!
EDIT: Also in there is the wonderful stuff about being good little slaves, particularly if you have been enslaved by a Christian, not sure Timothy is a good go to book on Christian morals. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 07/03/2013 06:12:12 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2013 : 05:57:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Also, you are part of the problem and no better than the christians you call bigots. You call people bigots because they have different moral values than you when you stand on nothing more than your own thoughts about morality. You have no standard to call anyone a bigot.
|
Actually we are qualified to call people bigots, you see we speak the English language and it very clearly defines the term bigot, we can then apply that meaning where it so obviously fits. You then may counter and call us bigots for our obvious bigotry. It's very simple.
From M-W.com,
Bigot
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Even you would admit that many Christians* fit this definition.
*You're not allowed to just remove Catholics from an arguement when it's convenient for you because you're a Protestant. Feel free to start topics with "Please focus on Protestant issues, I make no case for the Catholic positions" |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 07/03/2013 06:08:04 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2013 : 06:19:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Sounds like Tim 1:8-10 is just more Christians deciding which laws are "Sound doctrine" for everyone else. Yet more ignoring of their own rules about minding the laws of the land.
Found this whilst rereading 1Tim, ;)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.--1 Tim.2:11-12
Shut up and listen!
EDIT: Also in there is the wonderful stuff about being good little slaves, particularly if you have been enslaved by a Christian, not sure Timothy is a good go to book on Christian morals.
|
Not to mention all the dress code laws. Seriously, dress codes are more frequent than cries against homosexuality.
Edit: not to mention handicapped people are not allowed, so I'm doubly safe: female AND crippled! |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 07/03/2013 06:20:46 |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2013 : 12:09:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Originally posted by Convinced
Also, you are part of the problem and no better than the christians you call bigots. You call people bigots because they have different moral values than you when you stand on nothing more than your own thoughts about morality. You have no standard to call anyone a bigot.
|
Actually we are qualified to call people bigots, you see we speak the English language and it very clearly defines the term bigot, we can then apply that meaning where it so obviously fits. You then may counter and call us bigots for our obvious bigotry. It's very simple.
From M-W.com,
Bigot
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Even you would admit that many Christians* fit this definition. |
Ok, I was more referring to the moral judgement that goes with it. You cannot say being a bigot is a bad thing and expect others to have that same view. You have nothing to base that opinion on but your own ideas.
*You're not allowed to just remove Catholics from an arguement when it's convenient for you because you're a Protestant. Feel free to start topics with "Please focus on Protestant issues, I make no case for the Catholic positions"
|
People that are not christians should not be called christians. And of course there are Catholics that are christians but try to square most of the CCC with the Bible and it cannot be done. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2013 : 13:17:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
People that are not christians should not be called christians. And of course there are Catholics that are christians but try to square most of the CCC with the Bible and it cannot be done. |
You realize that some Catholics say the same about you, yes? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Victories for equality
