|
JawnV6 posted:An animal that dies of natural causes is not kosher. You have to slaughter it. Lobster and Pork are unclean animals. This is all explained in the Bible. And modern Evangelical Christians should care about the ancient Hebrew kosher laws because...? That one is pretty far out there as a "gotcha!" try. Fake edit: I get that it's something a fundamentalist should have concerns over, but it's still a dumb thing to raise as an issue.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Grundulum posted:And modern Evangelical Christians should care about the ancient Hebrew kosher laws because...? That one is pretty far out there as a "gotcha!" try. The gay stuff is exclusively old Hebrew laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:And modern Evangelical Christians should care about the ancient Hebrew kosher laws because...? That one is pretty far out there as a "gotcha!" try. I got the impression they were just casting a really wide net and seeing if there is anything they'd object to besides gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Ronald 6:1 - 'gays are gross'
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The gay stuff is exclusively old Hebrew laws. This. It isn't a far-fetched 'gotchya' when they're the ones quoting specific old Hebrew laws to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Thanks for the links to the articles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Rickycat posted:This. It isn't a far-fetched 'gotchya' when they're the ones quoting specific old Hebrew laws to begin with. Also it should be noted in the Jewish community, while obviously there's a large amount of 'god said it, end of story' types, most decent Rabbis, including orthodox ones, encourage a frank debate about such things as the gay tabboo and you can find many of them from the assorted spectrum saying gays are fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The gay stuff is exclusively old Hebrew laws. Not entirely true. Paul's letters show a distaste for it, as with all forms of sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Edit: ^  ^Tatum Girlparts posted:The gay stuff is exclusively old Hebrew laws. And Paul, IIRC (I may be wrong here)? In any event, nobody who walks around with a bare head cares about kosher laws, regardless of what else they believe. No pastor I've ever heard of has suggested a return to those laws or railed against the uncleanliness of shellfish. My point was that as opposed to the other situations (which modern-day Christians have spoken out against), this one doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar of interest. It's a dumb detail and we agree on basically everything else, though. Edit 2: Apparently there *are* modern Christians who hold to kosher laws! See two posts down. Grundulum fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Sep 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Not entirely true. Paul's letters show a distaste for it, as with all forms of sexuality. gently caress Paul and the rear end he rode in on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Chief Savage Man posted:Pfft, I never read that poo poo. My mom is a Seventh Day Adventist. They never eat shellfish or pork because of that rule. Personally (despite living on the east coast of Canada) I'm not a big fan of shellfish, but I do like me some dead pig. It's one of those laws where I can see why they started but not why they continue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Not entirely true. Paul's letters show a distaste for it, as with all forms of sexuality. Then when they say, "But wait, you're taking that verse out of context!" or "That's not translated properly!" then you can be all  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Who the gently caress is this Paul guy? He sounds like a real douche.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Who the gently caress is this Paul guy? He sounds like a real douche. One of the original Apostles. His writings make up a pretty large chunk of the new testament and had a lot of theological influence in how Christianity formed. The irony is he was more conservative than Jesus was, especially his hangups about sex and women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
Can you call Paul an original Apostle when he didn't know Jesus, but only converted after his Jesus death?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:And modern Evangelical Christians should care about the ancient Hebrew kosher laws because...? That one is pretty far out there as a "gotcha!" try. Exactly, just like the gays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:One of the original Apostles. His writings make up a pretty large chunk of the new testament and had a lot of theological influence in how Christianity formed. The irony is he was more conservative than Jesus was, especially his hangups about sex and women. If you haven't read the Four Gospels (first four books of the New Testament, the parts that actually feature Jesus), it's worth doing so. It's lovely stuff on its own, and it gives you a lot of insight into what Christianity ought to be like. (# of times Jesus mentions that gays are evil, or mentions gays at all: 0.) Your reaction will possibly be like mine was: "This stuff is awesome? Do Christians actually read this? Because they sure as hell don't pay attention to it."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:Not entirely true. Paul's letters show a distaste for it, as with all forms of sexuality. Now I'm a Jew so I may not know the whole deal but I did spend a couple years in christian school. I thought Paul's only mention of homosexuality was something like 'and they lay with women and men alike' as a general way of saying the people he was with (captured by?) were decadent sinners, not so much condemning the gay poo poo but rather just saying 'these motherfuckers are humping everything, gross'?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Paul also complains about "effeminate" men, read that how you will. Rather than go back and forth on interpretations of Paul's teachings, I say treat them as occasionally insightful commentaries on Christianity and then chuck them. But I ain't in charge of the canon, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:All correct, except for the "original Apostle" part, as someone else pointed out. He was conservative enough that he bumped heads with some of the actual original apostles at times. Minor quibble - it wasn't that he was more conservative than the other apostles. The words "More conservative" don't really mean anything here as any shred of the concept of being "conservative" as we understand it today was hundreds of years from Paul's time. The essential conflict between Paul and Jesus' Apostles was that the latter declared that in order to be a Christian, you must also be a Jew (and thus also get circumcised, keep kosher, etc.). This particular derail is getting very far away from the topic of present-day gay marriage. Those of you who are interested in the history of the bible and biblical interpretation should really visit Blurred's Ask/Tell Thread. The topic of gays in the bible does eventually come up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Agreed. It's worth bringing up occasionally though, since so much of the anti-gay rhetoric claims to be scriptural, and a lot of pro-equality folks don't have the background to respond. Derail over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
And unless I forgot something else, Paul's book is literally just letters he wrote, right? As in this is just one dude's opinions and all, as opposed to, say, the son of god who had zero to say about gays?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:And unless I forgot something else, Paul's book is literally just letters he wrote, right? As in this is just one dude's opinions and all, as opposed to, say, the son of god who had zero to say about gays? There's probably a good reason why Paul is the most influential person in Christianity with the possible exception of Jesus, but it's a question for the Ask/Tell thread above.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
The 75 year old New Mexico clerk who started the recent civil disobedience gave an interview.quote:“Let me put it this way, some people have balls, some people don’t, alright? Some of them truly believe that they need direction from on high and they’re not willing to do a constitutional analysis. Some of them are philosophically opposed so they wouldn’t do it unless they were brought to the shed and whacked.” Yesterday's Pennsylvania hearing was full of procedural stuff. The state is suing to stop a clerk from issuing more licenses. This is not a challenge to the ban and the judge doesn't want to rule on that. There are other cases trying to strike the state ban. quote:The judge has to determine if the Health Department has legal standing to pursue what’s known as a mandamus action to force a government official to follow the law. He also has to decide if [the clerk] qualifies as a judicial officer; if he does, the state Supreme Court may have exclusive jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
New Mexico's Supreme Court agreed to hear the gay marriage case. Oral arguments will be October 23, and depending on when the court issues a ruling, New Mexico could be the 14th US state with legal marriage equality as early as the end of next month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Then when they say, "But wait, you're taking that verse out of context!" or "That's not translated properly!" then you can be all This actually happened to me on another site recently, someone declared that the Bible says plain as day that two dudes having sex is sinful and wrong, and cultural/historical context don't mean anything because of how clear the Bible is on the subject. I responded the Bible was also quite clear on not wearing clothing made of two different types of fabrics. Their response? "You're ignoring the context of that law in their society." But back to the topic at hand... Sweeney Tom posted:New Mexico's Supreme Court agreed to hear the gay marriage case. Oral arguments will be October 23, and depending on when the court issues a ruling, New Mexico could be the 14th US state with legal marriage equality as early as the end of next month. Is there any indication of how likely it is to go through? I know that the general feeling from previous posts in the thread is the government viewed banning same-sex marriage as a violation of equal protection laws but I wasn't sure if there were some really stubborn people in positions of power there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:This actually happened to me on another site recently, someone declared that the Bible says plain as day that two dudes having sex is sinful and wrong, and cultural/historical context don't mean anything because of how clear the Bible is on the subject. And the context for that is "stop worshiping other gods!!" In this case it's Leviticus and "Moloch" a god whose ceremonies required a lot of sacrifices and sex and statues. Suddenly Big "G" God comes to town and guess what He thinks is wrong! Yup! Everything you need to worship Moloch! What a coincidence! The context is pretty much God yelling at people to stop worshiping other gods because doing all that stuff is dirty and sinful...in worshiping other gods but Him. Since He's cool with sacrifice and offerings and statues to Him I can only imagine He's cool with the gays...if they worship Him as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:This actually happened to me on another site recently, someone declared that the Bible says plain as day that two dudes having sex is sinful and wrong, and cultural/historical context don't mean anything because of how clear the Bible is on the subject. More likely than not at this point. Speaking of things that are likely, it was already posted in the UK marriage equality thread, but Scotland's likely getting marriage equality before next summer. They already have more than enough votes for it to pass, with more undecided than against at the moment, barring an extraordinary dramatic shift on the subject, and they hope to fast-track it along and have the Queen give it Royal Assent by March. I hope Ireland gains it in 2014 as well, although I'm admittedly not certain how likely that looks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
In Midwest gay marriage news, recently Eli Lilly in Indianapolis has came out in support for Gay Marriage. This is much to the chagrin of our local congressmen who have had the Amendment against same sex marriage tabled since DOMA hit the Supreme Court. This article in the Indianapolis Business Journal was a surprise to me though. It's worth a read. It threw me for a second because of how weird our state can be when it comes to Tea Party bullcrap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:00
|
|
Spiffster posted:In Midwest gay marriage news, recently Eli Lilly in Indianapolis has came out in support for Gay Marriage. This is much to the chagrin of our local congressmen who have had the Amendment against same sex marriage tabled since DOMA hit the Supreme Court. This article in the Indianapolis Business Journal was a surprise to me though. It's worth a read. It threw me for a second because of how weird our state can be when it comes to Tea Party bullcrap. Ahahah, that article is wonderful, it just drips with sarcastic invective for anti-marriage types. 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:In Midwest gay marriage news, recently Eli Lilly in Indianapolis has came out in support for Gay Marriage. This is much to the chagrin of our local congressmen who have had the Amendment against same sex marriage tabled since DOMA hit the Supreme Court. This article in the Indianapolis Business Journal was a surprise to me though. It's worth a read. It threw me for a second because of how weird our state can be when it comes to Tea Party bullcrap. Corporate support for same sex marriage has been strong in Indiana for quite some time. They've been actively working against the amendment because it could invalidate domestic partner benefits, and they don't want to give anyone another excuse NOT to come to Indiana. There are plenty already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Is there any indication of how likely it is to go through? I know that the general feeling from previous posts in the thread is the government viewed banning same-sex marriage as a violation of equal protection laws but I wasn't sure if there were some really stubborn people in positions of power there. quote:When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
In California gay inmates can now get married to non-incarcerated people. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/09/gay_inmates_california_marry.php Interesting wording on that, but I guess they don't want a situation where they are housing two inmates who are spouses in the same facility or something. Prison chaplains can refuse to preform the ceremony but the celebrants are allowed to bring in anyone who is authorized to preform a wedding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Witholding service to gay couples on the grounds of religion is stupid. There is no religion that says Thou shalt not bake cakes for men who lie with men like with women. Leviticus said they're abominations and must be put to death. So not killing gays, people with tattoos, people wearing 2 kinds of fabric and people picking up sticks in the woods during the sabbath, is already going against their religion. And especially there's none that says Thou shalt not let men marry other men or women marry other women. Instead we outlawed polygamy, which is okayed in some religions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
wid posted:Witholding service to gay couples on the grounds of religion is stupid. There is no religion that says Thou shalt not bake cakes for men who lie with men like with women. Leviticus said they're abominations and must be put to death. So not killing gays, people with tattoos, people wearing 2 kinds of fabric and people picking up sticks in the woods during the sabbath, is already going against their religion. And especially there's none that says Thou shalt not let men marry other men or women marry other women. I know right? King Solomon had like 300 wives and concubines, and he's held up as the wisest man to ever live according to the Bible. Wiser than even King David (who arraigned the death of the husband of the woman he loved so that he could marry her. To be fair God was a little pissed about that. But still, real ethical there Bub) I wonder how the 'no TWO same-gender inmates can get married' thing will go since I'm pretty sure (I might be wrong) that a male and female inmate can get married in California. Of course they would be housed in separate prisons so it makes the security issue less relevant. But couldn't they transfer a same-sex couple to different prisons, or is that bad somehow or what? I'm seriously confused here. Part of the solution of course is to put less people in prison but this is the US of A so that probably won't happen. 
platedlizard fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
wid posted:Witholding service to gay couples on the grounds of religion is stupid. The "on the grounds of religion" thing is a smokescreen though because they're not advocating that atheists or other non-Christians be prohibited from marrying despite the fact that not believing in God is a sin too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Jesus went and washed the feet of sinners and broke bread with them to stymie exactly this sort of thing. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
Minnesota's sex offender program will allow those in treatment at its controversial Moose Lake facility to marry one another. There are some logistical and security concerns that will need to be ironed out first; offenders in the program are not allowed conjugal visits or any sexual behavior. http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/223005001.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
In case it matters to anyone, a reminder from the Tax Policy Center: for same sex married couples in the US, if you got an extension on filing your taxes for 2012, the deadline to take advantage of the old rules and file separately is less than a week away, rather than the filing deadline of October 15.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
quote:[Hawaii] Civil Beat called all 51 House representatives this week and spoke to a variety of other people in the political sphere...the tally in favor of same-sex marriage legislation was 27 in favor, 16 opposed. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 23:28
|
|