Religious Practices in Business

[happyhoix]

3. Eating fat (3:17) [That one’s “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.” All fat is to be saved for offerings to God. Normal penalty.]

Oh man, I am so screwed.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 7, 2015 11:08:14 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

3. Eating fat (3:17) [That one’s “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.” All fat is to be saved for offerings to God. Normal penalty.]

Oh man, I am so screwed.

by the standards of Leviticus, most of us are screwed.  you can pick almost any book of the OT and discover the same thing.

[dondub]

"educate yourself"

Ummm...ok. So 12 years of Catholic school including 4 years at the all boys Jesuit prep school ending in 1970 should count. That was basically Jesus 24/7 in
the family I grew up in. I decided not to seek the priesthood or do the 4 more years of Jesuit education at Seattle U.

So let's see what we have in the quest to find Jesus saying anything at all about homosexuality.

OK, that would be zero. Sure Virg can go all OT and quote Leviticus and other passages, but that was Judaism and not the words of Jesus Christ. I have experienced
that tactic every time I have asked the question.

Bottom line is they may be the one's that need to "educate themselves" on the words of Jesus. He did not proclaim against homosexuality. It is the men that think
they are of God that have made all of the rules about that. In the Catholic church, thousands of those men were pedophiles. They no longer have any moral authority.

Thus we are left with our secular society with a Constitution that does not establish any state religion. That Constitution says we are all created equal. Many men of
religion have fought against that for hundreds of years. They, in turn, and their minions, have no moral authority over any individual unless that individual gives it
to them. They still think they do, so they preach against homosexuality and their followers abide.

But the bottom line in this country is it is a civil right for citizens to marry, for gays to marry, for Blacks to marry Whites, for women to vote and on and on. If some bigoted

 dork wants to deny cake, or here in Washington, flowers to a long time customer, they risk a lawsuit and the destruction of their business entity due to boycotting, cutting

off a stream of customers, etc. So be it.

But to hide behind Christianity is just a smoke screen for the same kind of bigotry we have seen for years. Such as my great aunt from Hattiesburg, Ms. That would

"walk 4 blocks out of my way home after Sunday mass so I wouldn't have to buy my Sunday paper from a N-----."

[djAdvocate]

not that anyone asked, but i was raised by a very conservative Christian father, and attended a very liberal church growing up, but it was not "optional" for me.  it was compulsory.  i had sunday school every week for 10 years.  i hated it, but i learned a lot about the Bible.  and what i learned matches don's post perfectly.

Jesus had, essentially, hippie values, as far as i can tell.  and that really pissed people like my father off.  so, sermons consisted way more of the OT than the new.  i am guessing that this is the experience that most people have had.

[dondub]

When I( had the shoulder length hair, and took a lot of crap about it, I used the 'Jesus defense'. Although I did not have any facial hair, I told my father I was thinking Abe Lincoln didn't need to shave.

[EVT1]

Apr 7, 2015 11:11:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 7, 2015 11:08:14 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oh man, I am so screwed.

by the standards of Leviticus, most of us are screwed.  you can pick almost any book of the OT and discover the same thing.

Exodus has a lot of gems in it as well.   

[djAdvocate]

Apr 7, 2015 12:50:44 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Apr 7, 2015 11:11:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

by the standards of Leviticus, most of us are screwed.  you can pick almost any book of the OT and discover the same thing.

Exodus has a lot of gems in it as well.   

yes.  it is a veritable potpourri of damnation. 

[kittensaver]

Apr 7, 2015 13:18:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Today's Christians may or may not have scripture as a backdrop for their belief in the immorality of homosexuality, but those that do are completely justified in this belief.

Hogwash.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 7, 2015 13:18:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Too many posts here to individually rebut.

The list of laws Archie provides from Leviticus is a great place for Christians to start study. Unfortunately, this particular list contains several errors, numerous inaccuracies, and doesn't properly distinguish between laws for the Levitical priesthood and laws for the laity. It's best to start from scripture itself, along with a companion reference for contextual and historical perspective. All but the ceremonial laws, which were made obsolete with the New Covenant, are in force today.

Relevant topics that come up: How are the laws organized? How are they grouped? What categories do we find? How do ceremonial laws differ from health laws differ from laws of conduct? Which ceremonial laws were made obsolete with the advent of the New Covenant? Which laws were observed by the apostles, Gentiles, and Jews in the early church? What is the purpose and significance of each law? Which laws applied to the Levitical priesthood and which laws applied to the greater congregation of Israel?

Bottom line is they may be the one's that need to "educate themselves" on the words of Jesus. He did not proclaim against homosexuality. It is the men that think
they are of God that have made all of the rules about that. In the Catholic church, thousands of those men were pedophiles. They no longer have any moral authority.

If the Bible is the pillar and foundation of one's beliefs (and it should be for Christians), one is to live by every word in scripture. Scripture is far more than quotes of what Jesus Christ said. It includes all the writings of the Old Testament (the Law, the writings, the prophets) and all 25 books in the New Testament, only a small fraction of which is direct quotations from Christ's earthly ministry. Understandably, direct quotations address only a small fraction of what the Bible is about. To heed only only these admonitions and ignore the vast remainder is folly.

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Leviticus. The admonitions are referenced and clearly spelled out in Paul's epistles in the New Testament. Attempts to explain these verses as errors of context and interpretation (such as in oped's link) are readily debunked (as in the analysis by Dr. Gagnon). The male-female prerequisite for human sexual relations is enforced and reinforced from Genesis thru Christ's marriage his bride, the Church, in Revelation. There are absolutely no exceptions.

Today's Christians may or may not have scripture as a backdrop for their belief in the immorality of homosexuality, but those that do are completely justified in this belief.

unless they belong to the more liberal denominations, such as liberal Quakers or Unitarians, who pretty much disregard the OT.  and again, i am not arguing that we are more moral than you.  i am simply arguing that OUR reading of scripture is different.  we can tolerate you just fine.

can you tolerate us?

[chiver78]

Apr 7, 2015 10:23:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 7, 2015 7:55:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

There's several condemnations of it in the NT. For those wishing to educate themselves.

i don't buy that the Sodom story is about gay sex.  i think it is about RAPE.

and the marriage passages mention how cool hetro marriage is, but they do not condemn same sex marriage.

what does that leave?

that was always my understanding as well.

ETA: oops.....that'll learn me to answer as I'm catching up on the thread.    disregard the religious discussion, please and thank you.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 6, 2015 20:33:53 GMT -5 dondub said:

I'm still waiting for some so called Christian to show me anything that Jesus Christ said that was in opposition to gay people. Is just 1 (one) too much to ask?

See you over in religious discussion.

[mmhmm]

Apr 7, 2015 18:11:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 6, 2015 20:33:53 GMT -5 dondub said:

I'm still waiting for some so called Christian to show me anything that Jesus Christ said that was in opposition to gay people. Is just 1 (one) too much to ask?

See you over in religious discussion.

That post is from prior to my requesting the discussion of religion stop, paul. As long as people cooperate in that regard, the thread can continue here and I will not delete retroactively. If, on the other hand, the discussion continues to veer in the direction of arguments about religion, the thread will be moved.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[weltschmerz]

This past week has been a major victory folks. With Indiana passing a law that gives us the right to refuse to sell our cakes to gay people, there are now close to 20 states where we can look our gay citizens in the eyes and say, “no cake for you!”

While I was celebrating this great victory of ours, the Lord laid it on my heart that gay people aren’t the only people we should deny cake to. This got me pretty excited, because I really enjoy saying “no cake for you!” and this will give us ten more areas where we can arbitrarily apply principles from the bible to our businesses, instead of playing by the basic societal rules that make commerce fair for everyone.

Here are the other ten areas where I hope we can all band together and start standing up for our right to be biblically consistent in who we discriminate against– let us be bold! Effective immediately, we need to smile and say “no cake for you!” to the following ten people:


Read more: www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-situations-where-christian-bakers-should-refuse-to-bake-wedding-cakes/#ixzz3WjxNBiTv

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

... sooo much I want to say about that list (and that preacher/ministry) - but I'll hold back on my comments.

[weltschmerz]

Apr 8, 2015 14:00:14 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

... sooo much I want to say about that list (and that preacher/ministry) - but I'll hold back on my comments.

It's a tongue-in-cheek article from a former fundie.

[Robert not Bobby]

Apr 11, 2015 2:16:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Yep, who cares?  Well, other than that large group of people that want the USA to be just like Saudi Arabia or Iran. 

Funny how hard it is to differentiate between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

 My thoughts exactly...religion has a way of making the faithful "brain-dead".

Look, I certainly respect every persons right to believe in the cookie monster, Santa Clause, bugs bunny and the tooth fairy, as long as you don't try to make me believe what they d, against my will.

Religion is for private consumption, not public display.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 11, 2015 13:51:05 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

Apr 11, 2015 2:16:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Yep, who cares?  Well, other than that large group of people that want the USA to be just like Saudi Arabia or Iran. 

Funny how hard it is to differentiate between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

 My thoughts exactly...religion has a way of making the faithful "brain-dead".

Look, I certainly respect every persons right to believe in the cookie monster, Santa Clause, bugs bunny and the tooth fairy, as long as you don't try to make me believe what they d, against my will.

Religion is for private consumption, not public display.

precisely.  religion is between each of us and our God.  stop trying to shove your religion up my behind, and i PROMISE i won't try to shove my beliefs (or anything else) up yours.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 11, 2015 17:31:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 11, 2015 13:51:05 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

 My thoughts exactly...religion has a way of making the faithful "brain-dead".

Look, I certainly respect every persons right to believe in the cookie monster, Santa Clause, bugs bunny and the tooth fairy, as long as you don't try to make me believe what they d, against my will.

Religion is for private consumption, not public display.

precisely.  religion is between each of us and our God.  stop trying to shove your religion up my behind, and i PROMISE i won't try to shove my beliefs (or anything else) up yours.

It hardly matters if you don't call it "religion".

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Apr 7, 2015 10:37:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 7, 2015 10:34:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

They don't condemn incest or bestiality there either. The matters are clearly, unambiguously condemned elsewhere.

That sexual relations are exclusively between a man and a woman is an absolute, rock-solid prerequisite anywhere sexual relations are described in the Bible.

i didn't ask you that.  i asked where Jesus specifically condemns gay sex.

your move, ace.

DJ, that question is meant to be purposefully deceitful. People who use the argument that Jesus never said anything about it probably don't believe that Jesus only said the words written in red in many Bibles. I've read the arguments both ways on the matter, and honestly I started reading other opinions because logically it could make sense that words were taken out of context or something else....but when I read people's arguments about it not being in the Bible or not being said directly by Jesus, all I see is a lot of twisting to say (or not say) what they want it to say (or not say).  When I read the arguments saying it wasn't really talked about in the context of a monogamous relationship, it reminds me of the same style of logic of people I've heard who tried to argue that inter-racial marriages were against the Bible.  The only way to get that interpretation is to twist some things because I don't remember skin color being mentioned one time in the Bible.  I understand context, and context is important; but when I read the verses, even in those context...I don't have to do backflips, front-flips, squint my eyes, and turn my head just right to make it mean what I think it should mean.  So Virgil makes a fair point in answering your question...Jesus's words in red (even though I'm sure he said a lot more than that throughout his life) didn't specifically condemn a lot of things, but since people are huge fans of arguing about things being taken in and out of context...he probably didn't need to because it was a given.

As far as Leviticus, people claim something along the lines of "well then you are cherry picking, unless you believe everything in the Old Testament."  The problem with that argument is that by the same logic, the 10 commandments are no longer valid because we don't condone stoning people for doing something wrong.  Now somebody will most assuredly come with the "Judge not" verse, while forgetting that Jesus didn't tell the woman to keep doing what she was doing because nobody could judge her.  He was simply pointing out that we all have our sins and we should realize that before we start casting stones at what other people are doing.  However, just because Jesus didn't want people to judge by Old Testament judgments, it doesn't mean that everything in the OT is no longer valid.  Some parts were changed in NT, like what could be eaten.  Jesus never specifically condemned cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure that even though there are verses saying that nothing made by God can make you unclean, people probably didn't need to be told that they shouldn't eat people.  

[Shooby]

It's all smoke and mirrors. I really don't care if people want to believe the Bible or don't want to believe the Bible. But, if you want to pretend to spin the Bible then have at it.  Jesus quoted extensively from the OT, meaning he used the OT as a way to legitimize what He was saying. The NT does not throw away the OT. Jesus didn't eliminate the Law, he fulfilled the Law, but most people want to simply argue about what the Bible does or doesn't "say" have no real interest in understanding Theology or the Bible in its entirety. So, carry on with your pretenses.

[zibazinski]

I wish someone would say "no cake for me." I think I need that.