Hobby Lobby

[Lune]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you wear polyester blends? Eat shellfish? Do you work on Sundays? (I'm not being facetious)

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely. I do not live under the old covenant, thus I am not bound by the law of ceremony.

In other words, he has picked and chosen which parts of the Old Testament are able to mesh most conveniently with contemporary western culture.

Why can't you just admit that when Christianity spread to radically different cultures, it was adapted to fit the local customs? Eastern Orthodox for the slavs and greeks, Catholicism for Latin Europe, and Protestantism for the Nords and Germans. Then we get spin like supersessionism, or theology designed to explain why the same words from the same prophet mean different things to different people at different times.

"I don't follow that part of original Christianity, because God told the Israelites to do that, and I'm not an Israelite."

What really boggles my mind is how evangelicals and other protestants can reconcile U.S capitalist culture with Jesus' teachings.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely. I do not live under the old covenant, thus I am not bound by the law of ceremony.

that doesn't count and ignores the historical origins of christianity.

btw, i agree with you on the ordinance in houston or not revoking employer's rights to fire, but it's in the cases of succinct discrimination ("out of the closet") that the ordinance is designed to protect from. really, if there was a law that protected the privacy of employees and employers equally then there wouldn't be any debate about one's sexuality within the workplace and whether or not that was a valid qualifier for employment. sexual harassment laws already attempt to stem such language, but humans are pretty active sexual creatures regardless of orientation. my main gripe is that employers have the ability and seemingly protected legal right to invade the privacy of their employees and can use the information available to them to make a decision to whether or not that employee is worthy or not to be employed by them when the information isn't relevant to the work required by the position. being homosexual doesn't make a lawyer less of a lawyer. being homosexual doesn't make a cashier at HEB less of a cashier at HEB. i don't really understand why people harp on ad-hominem coupled with sincerity arguments (much like the Nazis did) to ignore the requirements of a job.

[Ravager]

This is why I rolled agnostic. I didn't want to take the faction hits.

[radditsu]

My wife loves it. But she doesn't like the sewing patterns they have. I have never entered one.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is why I rolled agnostic. I didn't want to take the faction hits.

Hahahah. Nice.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My wife loves it. But she doesn't like the sewing patterns they have. I have never entered one.

A wife?

[p99soundsok]

step 1: read the constitution
step 2: either you're too fucking dumb to realize how this should be resolved
step 3: or you're smart enough to realize that our country was founded on the basis of personal freedom

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by p99soundsok [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

step 1: read the constitution
step 2: either you're too fucking dumb to realize how this should be resolved
step 3: or you're smart enough to realize that our country was founded on the basis of personal freedom

USA was founded by litigators who were also smugglers

[p99soundsok]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

USA was founded by litigators who were also smugglers

all of the founding fathers were litigators and smugglers? hm. not only are you completely wrong, you are providing content that even if it were true would still not change the meaning of what I said

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In other words, he has picked and chosen which parts of the Old Testament are able to mesh most conveniently with contemporary western culture.

Spoilered to reduce the derailing of the main thread.

 

Framing Supersessionism and similar doctrines as spin does not make them that. They exist as doctrine because they are often reasonable explanations for the now non-binding nature of much of the Levitical law. It may not persuade you, but they generally are a large part of the Christian faith.

Jesus spoke (MATTHEW 15:11), and Paul wrote about this frequently (ROMANS 7:6, for example). Given Christ's record on the subject, I'd say following in his lead on the old covenant is far from intellectually dishonest. Paul directly rebuts the soteriological value of keeping the law (GALATIONS 2:16). Thus, I'm wearing my comfy multi-fiber shirt.

That said, perhaps my interpretation is wrong and I am in sin by not keeping the law. If this is so, then I repent and beg the Father for forgiveness in my ignorance for I "know not what I do," and I throw myself at the feet of Christ.