409CISecondGen

iTrader: (2)

Where's the protection of the biblical definition of marriage between a man and multiple women, or rape victim and man?

Furthermore, where's the protection from wearing clothes made of mixed fibers (Leviticus 19:19, the chapter after the bit about homosexuality)?

luvmeZ28

iTrader: (3)

In my humble opinion, you are taking Leviticus 19:19 out of context. That particular command was a way for the Israelites to separate themselves from the people of that land, the caananites. That particular command would not be relevant now, but the principle of being obedient to God still stands.

LSCha0s

iTrader: (4)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

The biblical definition of a marriage is anti gay no? Again, I have no dog in this fight It looks like you might. Just for the record this is not an argument and I support your right to believe what you will.

409CISecondGen

iTrader: (2)

Oh but leviticus 18:22 applies to everyone...


Honestly, marriage doesn't come from the bible. People were getting married long before it was around.

Btw, that doesn't mean the owners of Chick-Fil-A don't have a right to free speech.

B04W

I suppose it was inevitable that this would turn into a bible discussion. Nor do I feel that a bible discussion is directly related to the point of the CFA issue...

You won't find it in the old testament. In fact, the Jewish religion only recently (as a relative term) took a stand against polygamy. Your answer lies in the interpretations of both Jesus (in Matthew) and Paul (in various books, eg Titus, Cointhians), among others within the new testament.


Again, I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the situation. Regardless, rape has been a sin since old testament. My easiest solution/response to your question is the 7th commandment, which is not gender-specific. I'll also comment that adultery is not just something that happens to married people. The biblical definition of adultery is a defamation of the marriage-bed or basically, what married people do - gettin' it on, by those not in a position to do so.

So by now, it's obvious that you're just hunting for invalidation of biblical teachings. I finished my chores for the weekend so I have time to play. This is obviously old testament. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no Torah expert. Leviticus was written to annotate the rules that Levites (those from Levi) had to practice in order to act as priests for the Jews. In doing so, God left Moses a few all-encompassing (to not just Levites) rules as well. Again, a rabbi may give you a better answer but I think Christians see rules like this as God's groundwork for A. making a distinction between his chosen people (the Israelites) and B. a set of rules that are literally impossible to follow, thus requiring a savior - someone who will take the immediate punishment for knowing that none of us can follow everything like we were instructed to.

I realize that response may open the door for a much broader interpretation of all the rules, but taken in context with the rest of the teachings, most importantly in the new testament, it shouldn't.

B04W

Thanks. I don't have a dog, per-say. My only concern is that people understand the different between actively supporting something and being actively anti-something else. There's a big difference. I know gay people and love them as I would most everyone else. I just choose not to support the gay lifestyle.

luvmeZ28

iTrader: (3)

Do a bible search, how many times do you think God commands his people not to wear mixed material clothing? Once? how many times is it stated that homosexuality is wrong? MANY. In life I've always found that things that are truly important are mentioned often. That goes for anything. The clothing thing was important at the time, much like animal sacrifice and eating unleavened bread was back in those days. You are free to think what you want, im in no way hurt by it, many people out there, unknowingly or otherwise, take Bible verses out pf context or twist them, all the tome to help their arguments. Its a shame.

And I see several things wrong with that nifty chart you posted as well.

KCS

iTrader: (20)

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,"

If he had just left it at "we support the biblical definition of marriage", I doubt we would even be talking about this. However, after calling a generation of Americans arrogant and prideful, it should come as no surprise that people would be pissed. As the President of a company as large as CFA, you have a responsibility to the shareholders and the thousands of people employed by CFA to protect the company and it's image. It was a poor decision.

409CISecondGen

iTrader: (2)

Regardless of how you want to interpret your particular holy book, you can't use it to legislate that belief into law and oppress others. The constitution allows for freedom of speech yes, tyranny of the majority no.

B04W

Time will offer a better indication of how right you are.

I'm sorry, is that what CFA was trying to do?



While I'll agree with you that the bible shouldn't be used to oppress anyone, I believe the closer our laws align themselves with those within it, as it relates to prohibiting actions, the better off we are as a society.

BigBronco

iTrader: (2)

Not everyone on this planet will believe in the Bible/Jesus/God/Allah/Etc....

Why can't people just let others do as they please. People should try being GOOD, regardless of what deity/religion they are a part of.

boofthese

iTrader: (14)

I love their spicy chicken sandwich...to bad it gives me the burning *****

I still eat it though, I do it to myself :/ lol

CHADsterss

Lmfao!!!!!

za355tx

iTrader: (108)

That's exactly my point. You asked why people hate gays...I answered why, because many religions are completely opposed. I was simply answering the question you posed. As human beings I have nothing against gays. I've known gay people who are great people. But it is simply my opinion that marraige is for a man and a woman. I do not speak for anyone else. I would never say I hate a person because they are go nor would I think less of them.

I think most people would agree that the complication here is not that all straight people hate gay people...I think majority just believe gays should not be allowed to marry. And we have the absolute right to believe that. That does not mean people should not like someone just because they are different. But that's hate and racism for you. Again...never going to end.

1_MEANZ28

iTrader: (4)

to each his own,hate em love em what ever u want

bill12690

iTrader: (4)

Glad someone finally pointed that out.


The fact that so many gays are so butt-hurt (no pun intended) about this is what's making it such a big deal. Just like racism in this country, its ******* ridiculous.

Its absolutely ridiculous for anyone to think that Dan Cathy shouldn't be allowed to have his beliefs, or even state them in front of the public. He didn't say anything that was rude, hateful, discriminative, or racist.

So let's say Elton John and Ellen Degerneres come on CNN and say "We support gay marriage" does that mean all the straight people in America have to get all pissy and boycott anything to do with them?

I personally think its f***ing annoying that people are whining about this so much. There's WAY more important **** as a nation that people should devote their time and thoughts to than this.

And what about Home Depot? Don't they openly support gay marriage? I guess as a straight male, I should be offended right? Should I not buy anything from Home Depot?

Seems like people are making a bigger deal about this than when Obama said basically the same thing.

409CISecondGen

iTrader: (2)

No one's saying he shouldn't be allowed to have or speak certain beliefs, but that doesn't mean others can't boycott his business because they disagree with him.

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

Religion and politics... Cool thread.

bill12690

iTrader: (4)

I realize that, my point is people seem to be turning this into something it's not, almost putting words in the guys mouth. Just because he supports the biblical idea of marriage doesn't mean he even has much of an opinion about gay marriage (not necessarily anyway) but that's what people seem to get from all this.

luvmeZ28

iTrader: (3)

The big deal in this are the government officials saying his business isn't welcome in their cities! They are openly peddling their influence, and discriminating against his business, just because they disagree with his opinion. Someone spoke of the CEO needing to watch what he says out of respect for the people in his business he represents, what about these mayors? Its not ok for them to say or do something like that!!!!