Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bakery Case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    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).
    Starlight,

    My misunderstanding is reasonable since you failed to define your terms and state what you mean properly. Nowhere before did you make any distinction between families that were extended when compared with a two parent and children structure. This is because you are an idiot who seems to think that this makes a blind bit of difference, because for some reason you think that having granddads and grandma's under the same roof influences a marriage between a man and a women which is the topic of conversation we are discussing.

    Your refusal to admit the passages which have stated to you which support a monogamous marriage rather than a polygamous marriage is noted and we don't care that you wish to ignore it in order to be stubborn to refuse that you made a mistake.

    1 Corinthians 7:2-4
    But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.


    1 Timothy 3:12
    Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.


    1 Timothy 3:2
    An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,


    Titus 1:6
    namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
    “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
      My misunderstanding is reasonable since you failed to define your terms and state what you mean properly. Nowhere before did you make any distinction between families that were extended when compared with a two parent and children structure.
      On the contrary, my post from which this subsequent discussion has arisen did both those things.

      1 Corinthians 7:2-4
      But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
      I think this is the best verse for your case. The trouble is, there are different ways to interpret it. The NIV translation, for example, interprets it as saying:
      "But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband."
      ...which doesn't really carry the same implicit opposition to polygamy to as your translation. Personally, I think Paul's general point in this passage is more about encouraging marriage & sex rather than abstinence, and I don't think Paul has any thought here about polygamy and isn't intending to condemn it by his words. But I do agree that an endorsement of monogamy is certainly one possible reading of this passage.

      1 Timothy 3:12
      Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

      1 Timothy 3:2
      An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

      Titus 1:6
      namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
      Regardless of how scholars interprets the phrase "husband of one wife", it is certainly clear that all three of these passages are specifically talking about church deacons/elders. The requirements being placed on them here are clearly things that are not necessarily expected to apply to ordinary church members.

      Overall, I simply don't think the biblical case against polygamy is all that compelling. Don't worry... it's usual for me to be skeptical of various biblical interpretations. I've seen lots of different Christians try to claim lots of different things were biblical when their biblical justifications were pretty tenuous and depended on translation-dependent specific dubious interpretations of certain verses. This is just one of a long long list of things that I've heard claimed that 'the bible teaches' that I'm not convinced it actually does. I don't tend to ever accept that something is biblical unless then are multiple unambiguous verses about it. (I spent far too many years as a Christian analyzing the nuances of Paul's various different statements about the roles of faith and works in salvation to put much stock in the view that it was legitimate to seize on any one particular verse, interpret it in whatever way you felt best, and set it up as the definitive proof of 'what the bible says' on any given subject)
      Last edited by Starlight; 05-22-2015, 07:34 AM.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post

        Regardless of how scholars interprets the phrase "husband of one wife", it is certainly clear that all three of these passages are specifically talking about church deacons/elders. The requirements being placed on them here are clearly things that are not necessarily expected to apply to ordinary church members.


        WHY do you think church leaders are told be be monogamous and above reproach? It is because that is how a good Christian should be. It doesn't mean that ONLY church leaders have to be the husbands of one wife, or above reproach. Every Christian should be above reproach, don't you agree? Or do you think that only the Elders had to be beyond reproach and that means that the ordinary Christian can be a dishonest lying crook? To be a church leader you should be the epitome of Christianity. Embracing all of the tenants and acting the way Christians should.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          On the contrary, my post from which this subsequent discussion has arisen did both those things.

          I think this is the best verse for your case. The trouble is, there are different ways to interpret it. The NIV translation, for example, interprets it as saying:
          "But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband."
          ...which doesn't really carry the same implicit opposition to polygamy to as your translation. Personally, I think Paul's general point in this passage is more about encouraging marriage & sex rather than abstinence, and I don't think Paul has any thought here about polygamy and isn't intending to condemn it by his words. But I do agree that an endorsement of monogamy is certainly one possible reading of this passage.

          Regardless of how scholars interprets the phrase "husband of one wife", it is certainly clear that all three of these passages are specifically talking about church deacons/elders. The requirements being placed on them here are clearly things that are not necessarily expected to apply to ordinary church members.

          Overall, I simply don't think the biblical case against polygamy is all that compelling. Don't worry... it's usual for me to be skeptical of various biblical interpretations. I've seen lots of different Christians try to claim lots of different things were biblical when their biblical justifications were pretty tenuous and depended on translation-dependent specific dubious interpretations of certain verses. This is just one of a long long list of things that I've heard claimed that 'the bible teaches' that I'm not convinced it actually does. I don't tend to ever accept that something is biblical unless then are multiple unambiguous verses about it. (I spent far too many years as a Christian analyzing the nuances of Paul's various different statements about the roles of faith and works in salvation to put much stock in the view that it was legitimate to seize on any one particular verse, interpret it in whatever way you felt best, and set it up as the definitive proof of 'what the bible says' on any given subject)
          Considering that Deacons and Elders usually get their positions years into their service and it's based on their commitment to Christ then claiming that normal Christians can be polygamous is a far stretch.
          “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
            Considering that Deacons and Elders usually get their positions years into their service and it's based on their commitment to Christ then claiming that normal Christians can be polygamous is a far stretch.
            Dimbulb is a complete idiot. This is a guy that aruged that it should be legal to kill babies up to 3 months old. Don't expect logic, reason, or even morality from him.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
              Dimbulb is a complete idiot. This is a guy that aruged that it should be legal to kill babies up to 3 months old. Don't expect logic, reason, or even morality from him.
              Oh, yes it's Starlight that argued that in terms of babies. Either he has been reading too much Peter Stringer or he is Peter Stringer.
              “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

              Comment


              • #67
                Starlight also claims to have been raised baptist, but knows nothing about Christianity or the bible. Maybe he was one of those kids who's parents dragged him to church on sunday, where he took a nap.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                  WHY do you think church leaders are told be be monogamous and above reproach? It is because that is how a good Christian should be. It doesn't mean that ONLY church leaders have to be the husbands of one wife, or above reproach. Every Christian should be above reproach, don't you agree? Or do you think that only the Elders had to be beyond reproach and that means that the ordinary Christian can be a dishonest lying crook? To be a church leader you should be the epitome of Christianity. Embracing all of the tenants and acting the way Christians should.
                  Apparently he never heard of leading by example, but what do you expect from somebody that wants it to be legal to murder 3 month old babies?
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                    Wow, just wow. This case was so contrived to get Christians to court. Definitely not good PR for gay people.

                    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...imination.html

                    The cake was not even a wedding cake. It was for some 'support gay marriage' gathering they were having. These people are quite happy to trample all over Christian identity yet make so much about their own identity.
                    Patrick Stewart has spoken out in support of the bakery (and is copping a fair amount of flak for it)

                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...bakery-support
                    Source: Stuff.co.nz

                    Actor Sir Patrick Stewart has had to explain his support for a Christian bakery that refused to make a cake bearing a pro marriage equality message.

                    The Star Trek and X-Men star argued that the bakery had the right to freedom of speech.

                    Many criticised his stance in taking the side of the bakery, which was ruled in court to be discriminatory. The ruling was seen by many as a positive step towards marriage equality.

                    "It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them. It is the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they found the words offensive," Stewart said on Newsnight.

                    "I would support their rights to say 'No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it'," he said.

                    Stewart also responded to the backlash against his standing, by posting a statement on his Facebook page saying that both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights.

                    "In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights - and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn't compromised in the pursuit of the other. I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts.

                    "I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured."

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    https://www.facebook.com/patrickstew...44587245629183
                    Source: Patrick Stewart on FB

                    As part of my advocacy for Amnesty International, I gave an interview on a number of subjects related to human rights, civil rights and freedom of speech. During the interview, I was asked about the Irish bakers who refused to put a message on a cake which supported marriage equality, because of their beliefs. In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights— and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn’t compromised in the pursuit of the other. I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts. I respect and understand their position, especially in this important climate where the tides of prejudices and inequality are (thankfully) turning. What I cannot respect is that some have conflated my position on this single matter to assume I’m anti-equality or that I share the personal beliefs of the bakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                    1 Corinthians 16:13

                    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                    -Ben Witherington III

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                      Patrick Stewart has spoken out in support of the bakery (and is copping a fair amount of flak for it)
                      His flawed logic is that the same people who want their personal preferences to be honored should, themselves, honor the personal preferences of others.

                      How barbaric!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                        Patrick Stewart has spoken out in support of the bakery (and is copping a fair amount of flak for it)

                        http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...bakery-support
                        Source: Stuff.co.nz

                        Actor Sir Patrick Stewart has had to explain his support for a Christian bakery that refused to make a cake bearing a pro marriage equality message.

                        The Star Trek and X-Men star argued that the bakery had the right to freedom of speech.

                        Many criticised his stance in taking the side of the bakery, which was ruled in court to be discriminatory. The ruling was seen by many as a positive step towards marriage equality.

                        "It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them. It is the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they found the words offensive," Stewart said on Newsnight.

                        "I would support their rights to say 'No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it'," he said.

                        Stewart also responded to the backlash against his standing, by posting a statement on his Facebook page saying that both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights.

                        "In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights - and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn't compromised in the pursuit of the other. I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts.

                        "I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured."

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        https://www.facebook.com/patrickstew...44587245629183
                        Source: Patrick Stewart on FB

                        As part of my advocacy for Amnesty International, I gave an interview on a number of subjects related to human rights, civil rights and freedom of speech. During the interview, I was asked about the Irish bakers who refused to put a message on a cake which supported marriage equality, because of their beliefs. In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights— and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn’t compromised in the pursuit of the other. I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts. I respect and understand their position, especially in this important climate where the tides of prejudices and inequality are (thankfully) turning. What I cannot respect is that some have conflated my position on this single matter to assume I’m anti-equality or that I share the personal beliefs of the bakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Patrick Stewart is, for numerous reasons, one of my favorite celebrities. And I was happy to see him draw what I believe is the exact right line on this issue: publishing the speech of another is a freedom of speech issue and the bakery was therefore within its rights to refuse to write something on the cake.

                        But really, this post is about linking to Stewart's "Macbeth" performance. Can't watch that often enough.
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                          Patrick Stewart has spoken out in support of the bakery (and is copping a fair amount of flak for it)

                          http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...bakery-support
                          Source: Stuff.co.nz

                          Actor Sir Patrick Stewart has had to explain his support for a Christian bakery that refused to make a cake bearing a pro marriage equality message.

                          The Star Trek and X-Men star argued that the bakery had the right to freedom of speech.

                          Many criticised his stance in taking the side of the bakery, which was ruled in court to be discriminatory. The ruling was seen by many as a positive step towards marriage equality.

                          "It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them. It is the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they found the words offensive," Stewart said on Newsnight.

                          "I would support their rights to say 'No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it'," he said.

                          Stewart also responded to the backlash against his standing, by posting a statement on his Facebook page saying that both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights.

                          "In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights - and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn't compromised in the pursuit of the other. I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts.

                          "I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured."

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          https://www.facebook.com/patrickstew...44587245629183
                          Source: Patrick Stewart on FB

                          As part of my advocacy for Amnesty International, I gave an interview on a number of subjects related to human rights, civil rights and freedom of speech. During the interview, I was asked about the Irish bakers who refused to put a message on a cake which supported marriage equality, because of their beliefs. In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights— and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn’t compromised in the pursuit of the other. I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts. I respect and understand their position, especially in this important climate where the tides of prejudices and inequality are (thankfully) turning. What I cannot respect is that some have conflated my position on this single matter to assume I’m anti-equality or that I share the personal beliefs of the bakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Everyone in Ireland is LGBT? No wonder they drink so much!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Everyone in Ireland is LGBT? No wonder they drink so much!
                            Yes, they are very confused...
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                            6 responses
                            45 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            42 responses
                            230 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            24 responses
                            104 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Ronson
                            by Ronson
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            32 responses
                            176 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            73 responses
                            286 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X