Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Refusing to decorate a cake is a long way from hate or bigotry.

There is the middle ground of disapproval.

Good for that church. Hopefully other places will take a stand as well.


Wait, isn't christianity supposed to condemn gamers/satan worshippers? Something is afoot. Grey Templar!! Yours is a holy quest. Thou must leave this thread and track down the cause of satanist gamers and the holy Christian church working together against this affront! Come back only when you have found proof as to why such mortal enemies wouldst stand together against such a foe!

 Frazzled wrote:
Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?

Just for clarity's sake I think it's important to remember that Chik-fil-A as a corporate entity has never expressed an opinion on gay marriage and has never descriminated against gays. The person who owns Chik-fil-A spent money as a private citizen as a donation to a religious foundation opposed to gay marriage. That's entirely different than Chik-fil-A the corporation acting in a political or descriminatory manner.

Not funny.

While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word. Much how you don't stop loving your children if they do something bad, but your favor will be removed till they stop doing the bad things.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?

Just for clarity's sake I think it's important to remember that Chik-fil-A as a corporate entity has never expressed an opinion on gay marriage and has never descriminated against gays. The person who owns Chik-fil-A spent money as a private citizen as a donation to a religious foundation opposed to gay marriage. That's entirely different than Chik-fil-A the corporation acting in a political or descriminatory manner.

You can substitute any company name into Frazz's post, though, and his point remains the same.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?

Just for clarity's sake I think it's important to remember that Chik-fil-A as a corporate entity has never expressed an opinion on gay marriage and has never descriminated against gays. The person who owns Chik-fil-A spent money as a private citizen as a donation to a religious foundation opposed to gay marriage. That's entirely different than Chik-fil-A the corporation acting in a political or descriminatory manner.

Sorry thats what I meant.

Disciples of Christ sounds like a biker gang. The original holy rollers?

Come to Austin. We even tolerate Christian bikers at our annual biker rally. And our food really is better than your food. And unlike OKlahoma we're not flat. We have hills and ponds (that used to be a big lake but those yards aren't going to water themselves!)

Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.

Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.

I'm not meaning to trivialise anyone's life, but to me it isn't purely about "the gays"...
In my mind: Over fifty thousand people, that's more that live in some towns in my country - that is a huge community, and everyone in it deserves to be respected and cherished.
Yes at the bottom of it all, a convention is about money. But it's also grown to be far more than that. It's not even about a small financial loss from "the gays" boycotting the event.
If Gen Con want to stand up and warn a governor, want to say that potentially ostracising any part of the community they have nurtured is not okay, it's a brave decision but absolutely their place to do so.
"We will look after our own." put in black and white.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.

Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.

Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.

Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.

Reply to Grey Templar. He talked about Christians walking away from the bible. I was responding to that.

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.

Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.

He's referring to Grey Templar without quoting him.

 Grey Templar wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.

Actually the businesses that you are defending are also making a fuss because other people wan't to exercise their freedoms, namely the freedom to stick their private parts wherever they damn well please.

And last I checked that isn't illegal. But you might not be served in certain places for doing such a disgusting thing. You have freedom, other people have freedom, everyone wins.

So it's OK for establishments to use tax-funded benefits such as police, roads, fire brigades, courts and so on, but they're allowed to tell the people contributing to those things to get lost? If I were more right-wing, I might be tempted to call that theft.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not funny.

Actually it is.

While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form.

And the idea that homosexuality is "sin" is absolutely ridiculous. There's clearly no harm done by it, and the only reason for calling it "sin" is mindless obedience of a hypothetical god. If this is what Christianity demands then Christianity is a morally appalling concept and the sooner it dies the better.

Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible.

Or they've just continued the grand tradition of interpreting the bible differently. But I guess you'll continue the matching tradition of declaring anyone who interprets the bible differently to be "not true Christians". Perhaps we should have another holy war to settle this?

But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.

Selling products to people does not mean "accepting the sin". If you don't want to compromise your (entirely inappropriate and offensive) beliefs then find a job where that isn't one of your duties.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.

Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.

Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.

Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care.
What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.

Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.

Reply to Grey Templar. He talked about Christians walking away from the bible. I was responding to that.

OK.

An Episcopal and Presbeterian would say you need to revisit your scriptures if you think they have fallen from the Word. Lutherans would just pull a blade and cut you. You don't mess with Lutherans. They're Christianity's wise guys.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.

Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.

Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.

Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care.
What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth.

My wife's actually Episcopalian.

My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not funny.

While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word. Much how you don't stop loving your children if they do something bad, but your favor will be removed till they stop doing the bad things.

I agree grey, its not funny, and it shows how hypocritical people can be in that bashing gays is not ok, but bashing Christians is just fine.

I want to preface the 2nd bit where I disagree, by saying I 100% respect your opinion, and you have every right to consider any act to be moral/immoral within your own personal belief system.




That christians are not to condone sin either, thats a fairly common teaching, whats not common is what particular sins are not to be condoned.

The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish, and all sin is equal before the lord

There is also the whole original sin thing, can we ever be "ok" in the eyes of a religion where were are all sinners, no matter what?

After all, should not he who is without sin cast the first stone?

 easysauce wrote:
The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.

Both of those are also from Leviticus, which were originally the laws as laid down by the priestly tribe and not meant to be God's law, but the laws of the Tribes of Israel.

That also doesn't get into the whole debate about whether the New Testament and Jesus' teachings are meant to replace the Torah, not expand on it.

 easysauce wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not funny.

While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word. Much how you don't stop loving your children if they do something bad, but your favor will be removed till they stop doing the bad things.

I agree grey, its not funny, and it shows how hypocritical people can be in that bashing gays is not ok, but bashing Christians is just fine.

I want to preface the 2nd bit where I disagree, by saying I 100% respect your opinion, and you have every right to consider any act to be moral/immoral within your own personal belief system.




That christians are not to condone sin either, thats a fairly common teaching, whats not common is what particular sins are not to be condoned.

The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish, and all sin is equal before the lord

There is also the whole original sin thing, can we ever be "ok" in the eyes of a religion where were are all sinners, no matter what?

After all, should not he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Actually that was wacked out when they decided to expand production and said gentiles could eat what they want and didn't have to...cut off...their former lives.
Nothing in the Bible about eating Tex Mex though so I'm good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

My wife's actually Episcopalian.

My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.

My at best agnostic boy is falling in love with a Catholic Aggie. Who says god doesn't have a sense of humor!
(Am I the only one who envisions god as Mel Brooks?)

 easysauce wrote:

The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.

That's a point; where does lesbianism fit in? That's not laying with a man as you would a woman.

Similarly, due to simple facts of biology, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is going to be rather difficult.

 Frazzled wrote:
Lutherans would just pull a blade and cut you. You don't mess with Lutherans. They're Christianity's wise guys.

For the sake of accuracy (satirical accuracy, but still): The ELA (Evangelical Lutherans) are generally very accepting and 'liberal'. The Missouri Synod is...perfectly at home down south. It's the WELS (Wisconsin) Lutherans that will definitely, DEFINITELY mess you up real good, concrete shoes and all.

/wink

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.

Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.

Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.

Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care.
What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth.

My wife's actually Episcopalian.

My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.

Ha, Unitarian Universalist is the only way to go!



Now to see if anyone know what it is....







Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you know, the "laying with a man" thing might not even be talking about The Gayness. It heard on the radio from one priest (or possibly rabbi, I can't remember) and historian that it's actually talking about male one male rape to show dominance. If you know you bible GreyTemplar (and you should by how you are talking about it) you will remeber the onse story who gave his dauters to a mod to be rped instead of his male guest. The mob wasn't gay, they were exerting dominance. A bit like prison rape.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.

Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.

Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.

Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care.
What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth.

My wife's actually Episcopalian.

My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.

Ha, Unitarian Universalist is the only way to go!



Now to see if anyone know what it is....

I considered it, but I'm more of a Non-Denominational Polytheistic Discordian.


Which means I'm the Pope.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.

That's a point; where does lesbianism fit in? That's not laying with a man as you would a woman.

Similarly, due to simple facts of biology, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is going to be rather difficult.

I think there is a joke in there with regards to lesbians and eating the shell fish.

at least, all the pieces are there.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.

That's a point; where does lesbianism fit in? That's not laying with a man as you would a woman.

Similarly, due to simple facts of biology, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is going to be rather difficult.

Unless the man is trapped in a woman's body, and it was a comment on transgenders!

Dear GenCon,

Please leave Indy and move to Philly.

Thanks in advance.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Ha, Unitarian Universalist is the only way to go!

.

This is going to sound crazy, but IMO it really isn't that far a reach, as a Christian, to not only accept homosexuality, but embrace it as one of God's works. If you'll bear with me.

God is infallible.

Homosexuality is a natural mutation.

God is infallible, so he intended for homosexuality to exist.

Personally, that's how I reconcile it.

But then again I'm pretty sure referring to it as a mutation makes me a bigot. So it is what it is.

I still think people should be able to service whomever they want in their own private businesses, and face the repercussions if they're exclusionary. Abercombie & Fitch doesn't make clothing for fat people. They lose money from fat people. That's their choice.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.

Actually the businesses that you are defending are also making a fuss because other people wan't to exercise their freedoms, namely the freedom to stick their private parts wherever they damn well please.

And last I checked that isn't illegal. But you might not be served in certain places for doing such a disgusting thing. You have freedom, other people have freedom, everyone wins.

So it's OK for establishments to use tax-funded benefits such as police, roads, fire brigades, courts and so on, but they're allowed to tell the people contributing to those things to get lost? If I were more right-wing, I might be tempted to call that theft.

It's is absolutely ok for private business and citizens to take full advantage of tax funded services while still adhering to their personal beliefs. The state is going to collect taxes from you regardless of your personal beliefs and the state will imprison you if you fail to provide the state wtih the taxes they demand. That the state uses it's monopoly on force to enforce the tax code does not in any way prohibit citizens from engaging in willfull private business transactions with whomever they choose or refusing to engage in willfull private business transactions with anyone they choose.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Ha, Unitarian Universalist is the only way to go!

.

This is going to sound crazy, but IMO it really isn't that far a reach, as a Christian, to not only accept homosexuality, but embrace it as one of God's works. If you'll bear with me.

God is infallible.

Homosexuality is a natural mutation.

God is infallible, so he intended for homosexuality to exist.

Personally, that's how I reconcile it.

That's actually perfect. Why should any god hate love?

 Necros wrote:
Dear GenCon,

Please leave Indy and move to Philly.

Thanks in advance.

Push off Yankee! Texas called dibs first.