Bakery Case

[Darth Ovious]

You're simply tricking yourself into thinking that the Bible supports your view. When, in reality, the Bible doesn't say anything much on the subject. What it does tend to do, by and large, is depict extended family structures and polygamous family structures.

Starlight you are crazy if you think the New Covenant isn't clear on this. Two become one flesh is says. Not three, not four, not five, not any other number. Two become one flesh.

[Starlight]

Starlight you are crazy if you think the New Covenant isn't clear on this. Two become one flesh is says. Not three, not four, not five, not any other number. Two become one flesh.

The one-flesh quote originates in Genesis 1, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is a New Covenant thing. And it's just a basic fact that the bible never gives any sort of firm rejection of polygamy... I'm slightly confused as to why you and Abigail are trying to imply otherwise.

In polygamous societies it's not common for multiple people to wed simultaneously - any given wedding involves the man (who may already have multiple wives) marrying a single woman (his new additional wife). Presumably the view of the people in biblical times who practiced polygamy was that the man and his new wife would become "one flesh" when they married, and any previous wives were already part of that one flesh.

[Darth Ovious]

The one-flesh quote originates in Genesis 1, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is a New Covenant thing. And it's just a basic fact that the bible never gives any sort of firm rejection of polygamy... I'm slightly confused as to why you and Abigail are trying to imply otherwise.

You're not a Mormon are you?

In polygamous societies it's not common for multiple people to wed simultaneously - any given wedding involves the man (who may already have multiple wives) marrying a single woman (his new additional wife). Presumably the view of the people in biblical times who practiced polygamy was that the man and his new wife would become "one flesh" when they married, and any previous wives were already part of that one flesh.

I see and when did you stop to think about the reason why Christians only get married to one person if you think it's not prohibited in any way?

[Paprika]

You're simply tricking yourself into thinking that the Bible supports your view. When, in reality, the Bible doesn't say anything much on the subject. What it does tend to do, by and large, is depict extended family structures and polygamous family structures.

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

If it's adultery to marry another woman after divorcing your wife, all the more so to marry while already married.

[Darth Ovious]

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

If it's adultery to marry another woman after divorcing your wife, all the more so to marry while already married.

Seems pretty clear to me, however obviously Starlight is having a bit of trouble.

[Leonhard]

~shrug~ The penalty was 500 pounds. That's pretty small and it's not really going to break the bank for anyone concerned.

You forgot the case where a bakery was sued by two lesbians for 135k$ for various mental ailments caused by being denied service? Including weight gain?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sing-page.html

[Darth Ovious]

You forgot the case where a bakery was sued by two lesbians for 135k$ for various mental ailments caused by being denied service? Including weight gain?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sing-page.html

Oh dear. The world really is going to heck in a handbasket.

[RumTumTugger]

You're simply tricking yourself into thinking that the Bible supports your view. When, in reality, the Bible doesn't say anything much on the subject. What it does tend to do, by and large, is depict extended family structures and polygamous family structures.

Someone one is tricking themselves and it isn't Abigail or those of us who agree with her.

[Abigail]

I feel you're stretching things more than is at all reasonable, to try to reason from the number of people God created at the beginning of the world to arguments about optimal family structures for child rearing in the modern world.

But is is more than just the number of people: Genesis 2:20-25

"The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."

No it doesn't.

There are some surviving instances of this phrase appearing on the gravestones of women from this period. The consensus appears to be that the phrase was a metaphorical one meaning "faithful to their spouse" or "didn't sleep around".

So nothing bad at all is said about him having multiple wives.

It seems to me like you're reading your own ideas into the bible.

You're simply tricking yourself into thinking that the Bible supports your view. When, in reality, the Bible doesn't say anything much on the subject. What it does tend to do, by and large, is depict extended family structures and polygamous family structures.

No one is denying that there were polygamous family structures but we are discussing what we believe God originally intended for mankind. Matthew 19:7-8

7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Jesus makes the point that some things were permitted because of the hardness of their hearts and He refers them back to the beginning and the original template of Adam and Eve . D.O. and Paprika have made excellent points which should clarify the issue for you.

[myth]

This thread has gotten sidetracked into all sorts of other avenues which I think confuse the issue. To my way of thinking the service was not refused on the grounds of 'you are gay and we don't serve you' since they serve gay peoples in their shop, but rather on the grounds that by baking for a specific event the bakers feel they are compromising themselves since that event was specifically in support of the gay lifestyle. So it is not really about the gay person but more about themselves and being associated with the message of that event. If the gay man had come in an ordered cakes for a celebration because he had been promoted at work I am sure the bakery would have made it for him. If nothing else these Christians were open and honest about their motives which is more than can be said for lots of secular organizations which claim to treat all people equally and then surreptitiously discriminate against those they don't like.

Of course. But don't be too surprised. Secular liberals are unable or unwilling to make that distinction because they're too focused on forcing other people to comply with their brand of morality. If I (as a Christian, heterosexual male) ordered the same cake as mentioned in the OP, the bakery would undoubtedly refuse to make the cake for the same reasons. But liberals want to claim it's the PEOPLE and not the IDEA be discriminated against. What a joke.

[Starlight]

You forgot the case where a bakery was sued by two lesbians for 135k$ for various mental ailments caused by being denied service?

That's in the US. Court cases in the US usually have higher financial penalties by orders of magnitude.

You're not a Mormon are you?

No. I was brought up Baptist. I'm not saying that the bible demands polygamy, or claiming that polygamy is a good thing. I'm just saying the bible commonly depicts it, and never condemns it. My basic point is that Abigail's suggestion that the bible explicitly endorses that nuclear family structure (that has become prevalent in the last 300 years in the West) is just plain ridiculous, and is a case of reading things into the bible.

I see and when did you stop to think about the reason why Christians only get married to one person if you think it's not prohibited in any way?

Neither ancient Greece nor Rome had polygamous marriages. At the time of Jesus, the Jews in Israel presumably didn't have polygamous marriages any longer due to having been Hellenized / Romanized. Subsequent Christians within the Roman empire would not have considered polygamy to be an option because it wasn't allowed. Beyond the Roman empire, it was probably more inertia than anything else: Christians would reason that they had never had polygamy and therefore it must be Christian to be against polygamy.

[Darth Ovious]

No. I was brought up Baptist. I'm not saying that the bible demands polygamy, or claiming that polygamy is a good thing. I'm just saying the bible commonly depicts it, and never condemns it. My basic point is that Abigail's suggestion that the bible explicitly endorses that nuclear family structure (that has become prevalent in the last 300 years in the West) is just plain ridiculous, and is a case of reading things into the bible.

Ermmm, you're wrong. Christians have been practicing monogamy since it's inception.

Neither ancient Greece nor Rome had polygamous marriages. At the time of Jesus, the Jews in Israel presumably didn't have polygamous marriages any longer due to having been Hellenized / Romanized. Subsequent Christians within the Roman empire would not have considered polygamy to be an option because it wasn't allowed. Beyond the Roman empire, it was probably more inertia than anything else: Christians would reason that they had never had polygamy and therefore it must be Christian to be against polygamy.

So you are contradicting your statement above?

[Starlight]

Ermmm, you're wrong. Christians have been practicing monogamy since it's inception.

So you are contradicting your statement above?

I think you might be misunderstanding what I wrote. I agreed that Christians have largely been monogamous. This is because they largely lived in societies that were monogamous, not particularly because of anything the bible says or doesn't say.

[Darth Ovious]

I think you might be misunderstanding what I wrote. I agreed that Christians have largely been monogamous. This is because they largely lived in societies that were monogamous, not particularly because of anything the bible says or doesn't say.

Well you shouldn't have said this then:

My basic point is that Abigail's suggestion that the bible explicitly endorses that nuclear family structure (that has become prevalent in the last 300 years in the West) is just plain ridiculous

So it's not just in the last 300 years. Oh, of course I'm forgetting that you're American and anything outside America doesn't count as "the west".

[Starlight]

Darth Ovious,

Ah, you seem to be misunderstanding my use of the term 'nuclear family'. Here are a couple of definitions:
"A nuclear family or elementary family is a family group consisting of a pair of adults and their children. This is in contrast to a single-parent family, to the larger extended family, and to a family with more than two parents." (wiki)
"A type of family made up only of parents and their children. (Compare extended family.)" (dictionary)

Throughout the majority of Christian history, extended families have been the most common form of family structure. The nuclear family structure, where two adults live together and raise their children together, without any additional relatives living in their house with them, has only become dominant in the last few centuries. While the average person today might refer to a nuclear family as a "traditional" family, without thinking twice about it, it's not really traditional in any real sense of that word, and the bible really doesn't have much to say on the subject of family structure (other than depicting various families throughout biblical history, most of which were both polygamous and extended, without making any particular comment about them).

P.S. I'm not American. I'm a kiwi.