It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

page: 21
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Since this is about Christians, how about we stick to Christs words instead.

Christ who overrode the old testament more than once.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


That whole animal rant was a lame attempt at responding to and insulting me.

I never said polygamy was acceptable or unacceptable. If that is what you are implying.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 




Funny isn't it? All this for that.... Anyone read animal farm? "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". We are all equal, but 'minorities' are more equal than others. Deny that and you invariably have to deal with the usual storm in the teacup, where the minority always reminds me of a spoilt kid who will scream until they get their way, everyone else be damned.


Actually that statement, in the context of the book itself, means that those in power (the pigs and dogs) are more equal then the other animals. To put in another way, the animals in power are more equal than the powerless animals.

It does not mean that minorities are "more equal", not in any sense that Orwell that communicating. In fact, you show a profound failure to understand the point of the book.

Yeah, if you think that minorities asking for equal rights and treatment is "screaming to get their way" then you are a racist. Pure and simple.

If you think that minorities have equal rights and treatment already, you are blind.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


I wasn't referencing you at all. I did ask Annee if polygamy was acceptable if Gay marriage was long before the animal rant(which was ridiculous) ever showed up.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 


Oh, you know what i mean.

LMAO.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


Size matters among other things, but obviously there is a vanishingly small minority that are on the fence. Why would someone "choose" such a difficult lifestyle with all the negative social reinforcement?

allpsych.com...



D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].

edit on 9-2-2011 by Bordon81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by romanmel
 


How is hating gays reasonable?

How is teaching hate a good value?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 




For a nube you're a real smartass, and thanks for the report and the warning, I fully expect another one now.


I didn't put a gun to your head, and force you to insult me.
You did it all on your own, just like your posting these insults...all on your own.

Sounds like you want to avoid taking personal responsibility for your actions. I'm not surprised by that, it dovetails nicely with your unwillingness to address any of the questions I directed at you and you chose to avoid answering.



You're wrong, have no comprehension skills and should probably fade away and let the grown ups talk.


Care to prove I am wrong? Or do you want to avoid that too?

If I have no comprehension skills, then how am I comprehending English, or how to use my computer?

Grown ups don't avoid responsibility for their actions.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Marriage is more of a church thing that the states should simply stay out of our business with. I see people on this thread blabbing about equal rights with complete double speak. States only offer marriage in the first place to assign rights and privileges to people with that marriage license that nobody else can have. You pay money and in return you get rights and privileges. No that is wrong. If you support equal rights that means you DON'T support gay marriage in the way gay people want it: paying money to the state in exchange for rights. What a total scam. What a racket.

The level of double speak and hypocrisy just blows my mind... yes lets all have equal rights by making us have unequal rights using state marriage certificates. People need to realize that state marriage is all about assigning special rights and privileges to selected people.

I'm not sure when the scam known as marriage licenses started but I know when it should end: immediately.
edit on 9-2-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 




If they value God's Word, they have to don't they, otherwise what we have is hypocrisy. Granted they would fit in better...


Jesus is god, and he said nothing against homosexuals or homosexual marriage. So...........

Like I said to another poster, the bible is riddled with contradiction. But if you take Jesus at his own gospel-recorded word, he wanted people to forgive one another. Not battle each other with resources and money over differences.



Your complaints and irritation lie with God and his Word, that's plain to see, the rest is a decoy, so why not just drop the pretense and lash out at your intended victim?


My complaints lie with a corporation that acts neutral to gays, takes their money, and then spends it on anti-gay causes. Denying those gays the right to protest with their money.

What is plain to see, is that you are willing to use baseless assumptions. The only decoy is you trying to make your assumption look like some kind of spiritual appeal.

There is no pretense. My stance has been cogent, and consistent. You are inventing some kind of religious struggle to accuse me with, where there is none.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman

My complaints lie with a corporation that acts neutral to gays, takes their money, and then spends it on anti-gay causes. Denying those gays the right to protest with their money.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say: "an incorporated family business that acts neutral to gays, accepts their money in exchange for a product/service, and then donates a part of it to charities I consider anti-gay"?

After all, I don't remember ever hearing about Chik-Fil-A rounding up gays and taking their money... I believe they simply sell chicken to everyone. Would you feel better if they refused to sell chicken to anyone who is gay?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 




Love the sinner, hate the sin? I don't hate gays. I honestly don't. I don't think that homosexuality is ok, but that doesn't mean that the people involved in that lifestyle are worthless. I think drug use isn't ok, but that doesn't mean that people that use them have no value, they are just lowering their abilities to function in society.

Gathering what you have posted previously, you have a serious loathing for Christianity...maybe just religion in general, whatever the case may be. I understand that you see the Bible as a completly contradictory source of writings. You see it differently that I do, I see it differently than the guy across the street who notices that Jesus never said anything about drugs, so it must be moraly acceptible in the eyes of God. Whatever. It is what it is in the eye and mind of the reader I suppose.

Back to the main premise of the topic... Chick-Fil-A doesn't support gay advancement in society. That is their right as an establishment. If gay people pay for their food there, that is the folly belonging only to them for supporting a company that doesn't endorse homosexuality. My money I pay for furniature with, donate to charities, pay my taxes with, all might support gays, and thats fine. I know that I can't have my way in other peoples dealings with money I have given to them. If it is out of my hands, it doesn't belong to me. I'll try and fund oganizations that find similar ground in the area of my comprehension of morality, as should people who wish to support homosexuals. Seems pretty cut and dry to me in that way of looking at it.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Am I the only one that found the title slightly confusing? Chicken DNA?..Christian....what?!



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Marriage is more of a church thing that the states should simply stay out of our business with.


Many things used to be more of a church or religious thing. Anyone can have anyone perform a Marriage ceremony.

So if you are not interested in the legal benefits - - - that go along with the Government Contract - - legally named "marriage license" - - - which protects rights and property of those joining together as one household - - - fine. Go have your religious ceremony.

Whether anyone likes it or not - - a "Marriage License" - - - does not mention god or religious belief of any kind.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Oh, how mature...slinging 2nd grade insults. Anyways.....

He said his instructions supersede the old testament laws.
Twice.


ok, bible scholar that you are.
What word are you using to say he superceded the law? he didn't, you did.
Jesys fulfilled the law and taught the deeper meanings of the law but he never changed the law or changed it.
For example, he didn't teach not to commit adultery or murder or to do it, as you weirdly imply.
He taught how to avoid commiting the act.
He didn't supercede these teaching he expounded on them.
He taught the harm wasn't done in the act but long before in the heart.
You see, he taught that first we see it.
Then when we allow our minds to lust and invent transgression we begin to forumate and conceive the act in our minds.
After doing that for long enough we are then much more able to actually carrying out the act.
See how simple that is?
1'st in the eyes
2'nd in the mind
3'rd commit the act
Jesus taught to cut it off in the mind and control the eyes. Then you can never get to the point to commit the act.
You however teach that Jesus taught something that neither of us understand the longer you spend time teaching the Bible to us all.
What is it you say that Yah said? He changed it to what? and superceded, what greek word is that translated from? I have never read that or studied it.
Maybe you can help us all with this word study so that if any of us are actually in pursuit of truth we might have a chance in at least stumbling across it in this schoolyard game we have going.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus

And if you think Gays have a right to marry and Polygamists don't then that is quite frankly hypocrisy since both groups are made up of consenting adults who's actions/choices don't affect anyone else.


I did answer - and no its not.

Our laws and legal benefits are set up for a married couple. Same sex doesn't change the legal structure. Multiples would.

How many times can I repeat - - "Legal Marriage"? And what goes along with "Legal Marriage?" Legal benefits.

If you want to change tax structures - - insurance benefits - - pensions - - etc etc - - - for multiples - - that is a different subject.

Don't try to manipulate my points.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

Who the hell are you to define mine or anyone else's morals.

Ummm.... sorry Annee, but isn't that exactly what some posters are trying to do? Define morality for Chik-Fil-A?

Just sayin'.. no offense...

TheRedneck


No I didn't think so - - or think that is what they meant. To me a moral business is a physically clean business with fresh food or quality frozen food used by its due date. That treat all customers equally.

I have no problem with the business itself.

Inferring that I have to believe in God or the Christian God and be straight to be moral - - - well that's a different matter. And personal.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

I have no problem with the business itself.



Why, thank you Annee... that is all I was waiting to hear you say.


Enjoyable debate... thank you!

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



How many times can I repeat - - "Legal Marriage"? And what goes along with "Legal Marriage?" Legal benefits.


MARRIAGE

A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

There's your LEGAL definition of Marriage.
www.lectlaw.com...

It also goes on to state.

It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicile and gains that of her husband.


Now if We're going to change the definition then we should be able to change the # of people also I would think, or can we just change it to what some people find Moral?
edit on 9-2-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IronArm
 




No idea of Christ and Christianity? Well I guess 4 years of Christian Theologial studies prove nothing to someone who is purely a critic of Christianity.


I didn't say you had "no idea", I said you lacked knowledge.
Why did you take a neutrally worded observation of mine, and reword it to sound like an insult?

I haven't really criticized Christianity itself, only interpretations of it. You call it purely criticism because you want to make everything I do sound as evil and insulting to you as possible.

Your right, I could care less about whatever studies you claim to have undergone. All it means is that you did something to earn a piece of paper. It doesn't prove you have any kind of advanced insight, in fact you could have been an F student. Unless you care to reveal your real name and credentials, you can't prove otherwise.



"It is easier for a camel..." This is in correlation to the passage "The love of money is the root of all evil." Note the use of "Love of money". Due to the greed of humaity in general, He is stating this to tell us that it is difficult for us to forego our hardwired 'me-me' personalities and follow His divine purposes.


The only correlation is that they both talk about wealth/money. Yes, I note the use of "love of money" it's too bad you fail to explain how it matters (is that because you can't?). Long story short, you are only proving my point. These "Christians" that run this "Christian" restaurant are hoarding wealth in opposition to Jesus' words and hoarding money/evil.

The fact that "money is root of all evil" (according to timothy) and Jesus said to give your money to the poor. Speaks to a non-correlation. After all why would Jesus instruct the rich to give evil (in the form of money) to the poor?



"Sell all your possesions..." This is more of a 'Don't let anything hold you down when I call you to my direction for your life'. Now answer this...how are we to give money to the poor if we are not allowed to make money?


Oh, now I see where you are coming from, you learned from "Christian" "teachers" who want to modify Jesus' teachings so they can be Christians but also keep a TV to watch American Idol with. You learned from dilettantes.

Now I know for sure that your alleged 4 years Christian education are meaningless as far as an honest interpretation of the bible is concerned.



Also...pro-equality does not nessisarily fit into the Laws made byYaweh; If you actually had total understanding past the partial usage of Scripture to fit your personal vendetta againts Christians. As I previously noted, not all of Jesus' teachings (including from the Torah, which firmly is against many things advocated nowadays as perfectly ok) were wrote down. If you read the details in the Gospels, it often says something along the lines of (to paraphrase) "Jesus went along, teaching and healing".


It's hilarious how you say Yaweh instead of God (you know, like most English speaking Christians), like it gives you more credibility. Hey,you could make yourself seem even more extra religion-y if you typed it YWYH.

You claim I am using "partial usage of scripture" but you are the slaughtering and cutting up passages FULLY QUOTED by myself.

Hypocrite.

Seems you're now running out of steam, and just resorting to faking crap like the others. Having a problem with Chick-fil-a's practices is not a vendetta against all Christians. It must have taken quite the leap of logic to come up with that farcical conclusion.

Yes, you did make fantasies about 3 years of Jesus life and tried to use it as proof that he taught as a Rabbi. I know this, you don't have to repeat the description of the mistake you made.

Whether or not the gospels mention Jesus teaching in a vague manner doesn't mean your fantasy about 3 years worth of time is correct. That's why I stick to the record, it avoids assumptions and fantasies that may or may not have happened.



Pro-gay...How about anti-moral?


Whose morals?

I think pretending to be neutral to gays, taking their money, and giving it to anti-gay groups is immoral.
I think factory-farming chickens and feeding that garbage to the public is immoral.
I think tolerating hate is immoral.
I think funding a group, and contracting it to deny homosexual couples is immoral.

So, I ask again...whose morals?



And to Annee....Most gays you know are Christians? You can believe in a God and not be fully following the laws made by that particular deity. Doesn't mean its right or ok by the teachings of affoemtioned possible deity.


So when Chick-fil-A funds anti-gay organizations against Jesus' wishes of peace and forgiveness, and hoard wealth against Jesus' teachings of giving all you have away, they are offending Jesus.

Thanks for admitting that.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join