detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 This was brought up the other day and I was reminded, yet again, about how randomly Christian morality is wielded. After all, Ken Starr and Co. is trying to essentially require 18,000 homosexuals who were married in CA prior to prop 8's passage to divorce one another. Of course, that begs another interesting question, because I was under the impression that the church frowns upon divorce. Imagine demanding 18,000 people to get a divorce in the name of god. None the less. Is this yet another example of those inclined to legislate a Christian agenda cherry picking those rules that are easy for them to follow (ie: not entering into a same-sex union) and completely ignoring those that aren't (ie: hitting the buffet at Golden Corral a 5th time)? Ironic, isn't it, that many see laws that have any impact on our diets, even if they are very minor and completely easy to get around as "liberal fascism raising it's ugly head". Sounds like that sort of thing should be right up the alley of anyone who advocates aligning legislation with a faith-based moral code. And before anyone plays the "it's all a matter of degrees" card. Is it? I mean, there's 7 deadly sins (I understand new ones have been added). Lust includes perversion and I assume that anyone trying to promote Prop 8 would certainly include homosexuality in that. So, granted. But next on the list is gluttony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilly Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 This was brought up the other day and I was reminded, yet again, about how randomly Christian morality is wielded. After all, Ken Starr and Co. is trying to essentially require 18,000 homosexuals who were married in CA prior to prop 8's passage to divorce one another. Of course, that begs another interesting question, because I was under the impression that the church frowns upon divorce. Imagine demanding 18,000 people to get a divorce in the name of god. None the less. Is this yet another example of those inclined to legislate a Christian agenda cherry picking those rules that are easy for them to follow (ie: not entering into a same-sex union) and completely ignoring those that aren't (ie: hitting the buffet at Golden Corral a 5th time)? Ironic, isn't it, that many see laws that have any impact on our diets, even if they are very minor and completely easy to get around as "liberal fascism raising it's ugly head". Sounds like that sort of thing should be right up the alley of anyone who advocates aligning legislation with a faith-based moral code. And before anyone plays the "it's all a matter of degrees" card. Is it? I mean, there's 7 deadly sins (I understand new ones have been added). Lust includes perversion and I assume that anyone trying to promote Prop 8 would certainly include homosexuality in that. So, granted. But next on the list is gluttony. Statistically speaking, 9000 of these couples will end up divorced anyway. Christians wield the sword of hypocrisy better than any other group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 a restaurant owner starting to worry that they will soon start to go after fat people ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 Statistically speaking, 9000 of these couples will end up divorced anyway. Christians wield the sword of hypocrisy better than any other group. Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Some people go about their lives trying to be consistent with the essential tones of the Bible and religious teachings but realize the literal word is not always practical and feasable in present day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 Some people go about their lives trying to be consistent with the essential tones of the Bible and religious teachings but realize the literal word is not always practical and feasable in present day. Sorry, but I think that's a cop-out. I can understand if we were talking about some random passage that had relevance 1000s of years ago but not now and, honestly, think it's dirty pool when non-believers try to use these as evidence of contradiction. However, gluttony is gluttony and lust is lust. It's not like being fat used to be something that one should avoid and now, all of a sudden, it's completely cool. After all, from what I've been told by those who support aligning legislation with standards upheld by the bible is that, in many ways, the bible was legislation long before the constitution. That god handed down rules that would help society get along and prosper. Sounds like eating to excess was frowned upon back then, both because it pointed to a lack of self control and it often came at the expense of the well being of others. Frankly, I don't see much today that renders that notion obsolete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 You will never meet a Christian who lives the way perfectly. To expect perfection of Christians and then to condemn them for not doing the impossible is to try to take on the exclusive role of God in judging the salvation of the individual. We Christians are called to try to walk the way of Christ. We fall and then we try again. That seems to only be a problem for the people who have never tried, or who have stopped trying. I don't know whether what Ken Starr is doing is the right thing or not. Is he acting in an attempt to uphold the constitution of California? Sounds like he is, but I don't know his motivation. Morally, I have no problem with homosexuals being married in their respective churches. That's where marriage should be recognized in my opinion (not the State). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Some people go about their lives trying to be consistent with the essential tones of the Bible and religious teachings but realize the literal word is not always practical and feasable in present day. +1 I have neighbors who cast a dispelling eye on us that we don't make church often enough. These same hypocrites were banging away like wild rabbits while living in sin for 3 years before they were married. My wife and I refer to fektards like this as practicing religion-by-convenience. Whatever they do that conforms with the Bible is OK.....whatever they don't, they feel they will be forgiven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Sorry, but I think that's a cop-out. I can understand if we were talking about some random passage that had relevance 1000s of years ago but not now and, honestly, think it's dirty pool when non-believers try to use these as evidence of contradiction. However, gluttony is gluttony and lust is lust. It's not like being fat used to be something that one should avoid and now, all of a sudden, it's completely cool. After all, from what I've been told by those who support aligning legislation with standards upheld by the bible is that, in many ways, the bible was legislation long before the constitution. That god handed down rules that would help society get along and prosper. Sounds like eating to excess was frowned upon back then, both because it pointed to a lack of self control and it often came at the expense of the well being of others. Frankly, I don't see much today that renders that notion obsolete. Yours is an easier platform to argue for sure. I dont have time right now unfortunately but will respond later. I can see your assesment of my post being a cop out to a point but so is expecting full literal interpretation of the bible and anything but that viewed as hypocritical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) You will never meet a Christian who lives the way perfectly. To expect perfection of Christians and then to condemn them for not doing the impossible is to try to take on the exclusive role of God in judging the salvation of the individual. We Christians are called to try to walk the way of Christ. We fall and then we try again. That seems to only be a problem for the people who have never tried, or who have stopped trying. I don't know whether what Ken Starr is doing is the right thing or not. Is he acting in an attempt to uphold the constitution of California? Sounds like he is, but I don't know his motivation. Morally, I have no problem with homosexuals being married in their respective churches. That's where marriage should be recognized in my opinion (not the State). Well, you and I have gone down this road before and I completely respect and share your opinion on this matter. I have absolutely no issue what-so-ever with any church refusing to marry same-sex couples. IMO, these are standards that a church is free to uphold or not and would stand opposed to anyone demanding that a church bend their code to allow for their inclusion. Like you, I think that the state should only deal with the legal elements of any union between two people but just think that pushing for the state to recognize hetero marriages but not gay ones is basically saying, "I want the state to say we're better than them." eta: don't want to put words in your mouth as I'm not implying you necc. agree with the bolded part. I also understand your first point well and, honestly only play this card on those who choose to force elements of their faith on others while they, themselves fail to live up to others. I am fortunate that my friends who happen to be Christian are essentially kind people who seem to fixate primarily on the elements of tolerance and giving rather than telling people what they should and shouldn't be doing. This post was pretty much just inspired by a discussion last night that came about after one of my employees shared the e-mail going around asking people to oppose Starr and his movement. Edited February 15, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) Yours is an easier platform to argue for sure. I dont have time right now unfortunately but will respond later. I can see your assesment of my post being a cop out to a point but so is expecting full literal interpretation of the bible and anything but that viewed as hypocritical Again, I find as annoying as you likely do when somebody points to a completely random passage that just simply has nothing at all to do with modern times and gets all literal. Also, like I mention above. If you, like plenty of other good Christians aren't making a point of running around telling people their life choice is a sin, then assume that my initial comment is not directed towards you. Edited February 15, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 +1 I have neighbors who cast a dispelling eye on us that we don't make church often enough. These same hypocrites were banging away like wild rabbits while living in sin for 3 years before they were married. My wife and I refer to fektards like this as practicing religion-by-convenience. Whatever they do that conforms with the Bible is OK.....whatever they don't, they feel they will be forgiven. Curious, the meat of your post is 100% in line with what I'm saying and yet you "+1" a post that essentially justifies what I'm challenging. Your neighbors are guilty of exactly what I am talking about. Giving you crap about not observing certain parts of the religion while failing to do the exact same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I have neighbors who cast a dispelling eye on us that we don't make church often enough. The folks opposite us are really nice but one day they started droning on about their church and were really pissed when my eyes glazed over and I fell over backwards into unconsciousness. It's only a matter of time before failure to go to church on Sunday is made the Eighth Deadly Sin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 The Bible condemns certain things and says that "those PRACTICING such things will not inherit God's Kingdom." Both homosexuality and gluttony are included. Both are wrong as are many other things i.e cursing, gambling, murder, etc. Some things you may do now and then and try not to do them any more i.e cursing, gambling, etc, therefore you are not PRACTICING these things but merely falling short. Living as a homosexual couple (or even just living with someone of the same sex) you are PRACTICING. Now if you continual over eat and fail to correct the matter then it can be considered PRACTICING it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 It's only a matter of time before failure to go to church on Sunday is made the Eighth Deadly Sin. It may not be a "deadly sin" but it's pretty high up in the Catholic church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 The Bible condemns certain things and says that "those PRACTICING such things will not inherit God's Kingdom." Both homosexuality and gluttony are included. Both are wrong as are many other things i.e cursing, gambling, murder, etc. This God dude sure likes to suck all the fun out of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 It may not be a "deadly sin" but it's pretty high up in the Catholic church. I nearly missed being confirmed because I answered the question about how many days of obligation there are to attend church in a year. Oops. I think I said something less than 5, thinking Christmas, Easter.... Turns out it's 52 (for each Sunday) plus those other holy days (Holy Week, Easter, Christmas...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I nearly missed being confirmed because I answered the question about how many days of obligation there are to attend church in a year. Oops. I think I said something less than 5, thinking Christmas, Easter.... Turns out it's 52 (for each Sunday) plus those other holy days (Holy Week, Easter, Christmas...) I stole the phrase "Creaster Catholic" from somewhere and it gets puzzled looks when I use it to say how I was raised religiously....then laughter when I explain "we only went on CHRistmas and EASTER." Very popular sect in the Catholic church, I've found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Some people go about their lives trying to be consistent with the essential tones of the Bible and religious teachings but realize the literal word is not always practical and feasable in present day. Whatever they do that conforms with the Bible is OK.....whatever they don't, they feel they will be forgiven. Curious, the meat of your post is 100% in line with what I'm saying and yet you "+1" a post that essentially justifies what I'm challenging. Your neighbors are guilty of exactly what I am talking about. Giving you crap about not observing certain parts of the religion while failing to do the exact same thing. I guess I interpreted Whomps post as saying there are many that try to live by the book, but if they don't, its OK because they feel they can interpret the Bible as they feel it pertians to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 The Bible condemns certain things and says that "those PRACTICING such things will not inherit God's Kingdom." Both homosexuality and gluttony are included. Both are wrong as are many other things i.e cursing, gambling, murder, etc. Some things you may do now and then and try not to do them any more i.e cursing, gambling, etc, therefore you are not PRACTICING these things but merely falling short. Living as a homosexual couple (or even just living with someone of the same sex) you are PRACTICING. Now if you continual over eat and fail to correct the matter then it can be considered PRACTICING it Not exactly sure what light this sheds. So, you're saying that if you're fat nearly all of your life you wont inherit god's kingdom? But if you're one of those guys who overeats, then diets, then overeats again, then diets, you're cool? Oh, and by the way. Back to the topic of things that made more sense when the bible was written than they do now. Assuming the stance that many against gay marriage do that homosexuality is a choice, couldn't one make a very good argument that heterosexuality was more important back in the day than it is now? For instance, provided the bible was a set of rules handed down by god to promote a good and prosperous community, it seems like spitting out kids was pretty important back then. There were lots of labor intensive things to do and no shortage of resources to feed those little assets men and women were churning out. So, no sense in two fertile beings wasting their best years in a relationship that will not produce children. These days? Not so much. Certainly I'm not saying that people just need to stop having kids, but it makes more sense now than it did back then for at least some people not to have kids. Homosexual couples are certainly, by nature, less likely to procreate than hetero couples. So, in this time where resources are scarce and automation allows less people to produce more things, making sure that adults pair up in fertile twos isn't quite as important. So, if you're going to make the argument that taking the bible literally and applying it to modern times isn't a fair argument, understand that quoting the bible in regards to homosexuality fits quite neatly into that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Not exactly sure what light this sheds. So, you're saying that if you're fat nearly all of your life you wont inherit god's kingdom? But if you're one of those guys who overeats, then diets, then overeats again, then diets, you're cool? I don't think I referred to a persons weight. One to be skinny and be a glutton as could one be fat and not be over eating. Also, by doing something thats wrong and then stopping but continual doing it and then stopping it, well that sems to be practicing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) I don't think I referred to a persons weight. One to be skinny and be a glutton as could one be fat and not be over eating. Also, by doing something thats wrong and then stopping but continual doing it and then stopping it, well that sems to be practicing it. Dude, the fat thing was simply an attempt to put an image to the whole thing. I understand the range of gluttony and that one can overindulge in any number of ways. Getting fat just happens to be one of them, and no, I'm not implying that having a thyroid condition should be a deadly sin. As to your second point. Is eating too much and then dieting because you feel bad about it, then giving in because you're weak and born into sin pretty much the same thing as the guy you were talking about who swears or gambles from time to time but tries to stop because he knows it's bad? So, if a gay couple felt bad about themselves and continually tried to live apart but, "through weakness" kept finding themselves back together? Are they cool with god? Edited February 15, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 .... couldn't one make a very good argument that heterosexuality was more important back in the day than it is now? For instance, provided the bible was a set of rules handed down by god to promote a good and prosperous community, it seems like spitting out kids was pretty important back then. There were lots of labor intensive things to do and no shortage of resources to feed those little assets men and women were churning out. So, no sense in two fertile beings wasting their best years in a relationship that will not produce children. Not to mention that barely a week went by without li'l Timmy getting eaten by wolves or Susie falling into the grain thresher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Turns out it's 52 (for each Sunday) plus those other holy days (Holy Week, Easter, Christmas...) Good grief. I roughly calculate that I'm behind by about 2,900 visits. I'm f'ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Not to mention that barely a week went by without li'l Timmy getting eaten by wolves or Susie falling into the grain thresher. I watched a thing about the Moghals last night. Akbar the Great was trying to wrap up control of Inda in the late 1500's. There was this big fort of holdouts in this massive joint on the top of a cliff. Akbar had to build up a mountain directly across from this temple or fort or whatever to be able to get his cannons to shoot high enough to get into the fort. The hill is called coin hill. Each slave was given 1 gold coin for each bucket of earth he was able to pileon the hill. Of course you were totally exposed to sniper fire from the fort. The beauty part for Akbar was that when the sniper would kill you, he didn't have to pay you and your body and bucket were like 3 or 4 buckets of earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.