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.

 

Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24


Perhaps it might be more enlightening to pose this question to jews, since these quotes are all directly from their scriptures, to see how they currently apply them. I know (after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem), the laws regarding sacrifice were superceded to allow atoning prayer and worship in the synagogues, but I've never dug in to find any modifications or abrogations of the other points of law. Looking into current handling might be quite instructive, as I'm not familiar with recent cases of the orthodox jews stoning their children or any of the rest.



thnx for your response. im posing these questions to so called christians because they seem to be using one part of LEGALISM and not the other parts of LEGALISM. Christians do still use the old testament do they not? If they didnt it wouldnt be in the christian bible would it not? Talking to Jews is a different ball game. They havent been condemning homosexuals with this whole chil fil a issue.

edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

i already responded to your interpretation of the word homosexuality being used in the bible. so im not going to deal with that error? here.


...actually, you responded to my opinion with someone else's opinion.
That doesn't make you right and me wrong... it makes yours a different viewpoint.

Ultimately while the commentary you've quoted focuses on the debate over the interpretation of the greek word arsenokitai, it ignores the fact that the verses I quoted, in the very same sentence, refer to "adultery" in the same sense and context as homosexuality. Adultery is defined in Scripture as sexual relationships outside marriage; while marriage is defined as a covenant relationship between a man and a woman.

With that in mind, homosexuality is still a sexual relationship outside a marital relationship, which means it is still a sin before God. So... while focusing on the interpretation of that one word might make for interesting wordplay (and there is credible scholarship on both sides of that divide), it doesn't actually change the point, Biblically.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter
"how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM? "


Put simply...
There are two systems in the bible. One is the political/civil/religious system of Ancient Israel, as handed down by God. The other is a spiritual system only.

The issue here isn't that Christians disregard passages relating to legalism. It's that the passages relating to legalism never were for, or part of, Christian teaching. They were part of an entirely different system that was given to Israel. This is why we have the Old and New Testaments. They're two entirely different covenants, or agreements, between God and man.

The purpose of the Old Testament is to serve as a picture of what was to come. So, the laws and requirements of the Old Testament are there to show mankind what is required of them; and, on the flipside, to show mankind that they can never, ever live up to God's standards (as Romans says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."). Those laws were fulfilled in Christ. The very concepts and realities that the law pointed to, were brought into literal being in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. Romans says, in the same vein, that "what the law was powerless to do (that is, actually save mankind), Christ did on the cross".

So with that in mind, what we find in the Bible subsequent to Christ's death and resurrection, is that man lives not under law, but under grace. What that means is that our holiness is no longer wrapped up in what we do (that vicious cycle of trying to keep the law and always failing), but in what Christ has done.

So, the old system, with its laws, regulations and restrictions, no longer applies - and for two reasons - first, because its purpose and set time is complete (in that Christ completed what the law never could), and second, because that system was intended for a time, and for a people, that were (for a time), rejected.

In this sense, the nation of Israel and the Church are mutually exclusive. This is a much bigger, broader topic, but it is one that is logically consistent throughout the Bible.

...so ultimately it isn't a matter of Christians "picking and choosing", but a matter of how the Bible actually presents itself. It's worth remembering that the Bible isn't one book. It's 66 books, with 40 different authors, over thousands of years. It's reflective of not simply of a series of laws and beliefs, but of the relationship between God and man throughout our history.

The law was there to serve just two purposes: to show us that we fail to live up to God's standards, and to point to Christ. And from Christ onward, we live not by law, but by grace.

The whole book of Romans centers around this point. It's worth a read.




well than why do we have Dan Cathy and a vary large number of other suppose christians condemning homosexuals using these laws and living by some of these laws and not living by others?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter
"how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM? "


Put simply...
There are two systems in the bible. One is the political/civil/religious system of Ancient Israel, as handed down by God. The other is a spiritual system only.

The issue here isn't that Christians disregard passages relating to legalism. It's that the passages relating to legalism never were for, or part of, Christian teaching. They were part of an entirely different system that was given to Israel. This is why we have the Old and New Testaments. They're two entirely different covenants, or agreements, between God and man.

The purpose of the Old Testament is to serve as a picture of what was to come. So, the laws and requirements of the Old Testament are there to show mankind what is required of them; and, on the flipside, to show mankind that they can never, ever live up to God's standards (as Romans says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."). Those laws were fulfilled in Christ. The very concepts and realities that the law pointed to, were brought into literal being in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. Romans says, in the same vein, that "what the law was powerless to do (that is, actually save mankind), Christ did on the cross".

So with that in mind, what we find in the Bible subsequent to Christ's death and resurrection, is that man lives not under law, but under grace. What that means is that our holiness is no longer wrapped up in what we do (that vicious cycle of trying to keep the law and always failing), but in what Christ has done.

So, the old system, with its laws, regulations and restrictions, no longer applies - and for two reasons - first, because its purpose and set time is complete (in that Christ completed what the law never could), and second, because that system was intended for a time, and for a people, that were (for a time), rejected.

In this sense, the nation of Israel and the Church are mutually exclusive. This is a much bigger, broader topic, but it is one that is logically consistent throughout the Bible.

...so ultimately it isn't a matter of Christians "picking and choosing", but a matter of how the Bible actually presents itself. It's worth remembering that the Bible isn't one book. It's 66 books, with 40 different authors, over thousands of years. It's reflective of not simply of a series of laws and beliefs, but of the relationship between God and man throughout our history.

The law was there to serve just two purposes: to show us that we fail to live up to God's standards, and to point to Christ. And from Christ onward, we live not by law, but by grace.

The whole book of Romans centers around this point. It's worth a read.




well than why do we have Dan Cathy and a vary large number of other suppose christians condemning homosexuals using these laws and living by some of these laws and not living by others?







precisely because they misunderstand the points above.
A large part of the church these days teaches what is called "replacement theology", that is, that 'the church is the new Israel'. They believe that God has rejected the Jews and replaced them with the Church has His 'new chosen people'.

This is not the picture the Bible teaches.

...this is also why you have Christenings and infant baptism - as part of the idea that "because Jewish babies were circumcised at 8 days, we should baptise infants". This is a misunderstanding of the fact that the Jewish system was national, and physical... the Christian system is not. It is spiritual.

I wish I could write you a long thesis about the church, defending it and telling you that it has everything right, and it's in great shape... but I can't.
The church itself is rapidly evolving into an entity that barely reflects the One it claims to serve. This is why, when I answer your questions, I quote the Bible, and not Dan Cathy... or even any other Christian scholar... because while Christians are often wrong... the Bible isn't.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter

i already responded to your interpretation of the word homosexuality being used in the bible. so im not going to deal with that error? here.


...actually, you responded to my opinion with someone else's opinion.
That doesn't make you right and me wrong... it makes yours a different viewpoint.


yes why i put it into the EXT-TEXT box. no ones trying to make anything right or wrong. im trying to understand these suppose christians btw.



Originally posted by Awen24
Ultimately while the commentary you've quoted focuses on the debate over the interpretation of the greek word arsenokitai, it ignores the fact that the verses I quoted, in the very same sentence, refer to "adultery" in the same sense and context as homosexuality. Adultery is defined in Scripture as sexual relationships outside marriage; while marriage is defined as a covenant relationship between a man and a woman.

With that in mind, homosexuality is still a sexual relationship outside a marital relationship, which means it is still a sin before God. So... while focusing on the interpretation of that one word might make for interesting wordplay (and there is credible scholarship on both sides of that divide), it doesn't actually change the point, Biblically.



which is my point. in one end we have people who believe a certain interpretation of the bible in the other end we have others who believe another interpretation.

who decides who is right? and especially why does this stink of high subjectivism and being used to condemn people and deny away their civil rights with it?

especially on text that are vague. and especially since Jesus never appears to condemn homosexuality.









edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter
"how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM? "


Put simply...
There are two systems in the bible. One is the political/civil/religious system of Ancient Israel, as handed down by God. The other is a spiritual system only.

The issue here isn't that Christians disregard passages relating to legalism. It's that the passages relating to legalism never were for, or part of, Christian teaching. They were part of an entirely different system that was given to Israel. This is why we have the Old and New Testaments. They're two entirely different covenants, or agreements, between God and man.

The purpose of the Old Testament is to serve as a picture of what was to come. So, the laws and requirements of the Old Testament are there to show mankind what is required of them; and, on the flipside, to show mankind that they can never, ever live up to God's standards (as Romans says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."). Those laws were fulfilled in Christ. The very concepts and realities that the law pointed to, were brought into literal being in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. Romans says, in the same vein, that "what the law was powerless to do (that is, actually save mankind), Christ did on the cross".

So with that in mind, what we find in the Bible subsequent to Christ's death and resurrection, is that man lives not under law, but under grace. What that means is that our holiness is no longer wrapped up in what we do (that vicious cycle of trying to keep the law and always failing), but in what Christ has done.

So, the old system, with its laws, regulations and restrictions, no longer applies - and for two reasons - first, because its purpose and set time is complete (in that Christ completed what the law never could), and second, because that system was intended for a time, and for a people, that were (for a time), rejected.

In this sense, the nation of Israel and the Church are mutually exclusive. This is a much bigger, broader topic, but it is one that is logically consistent throughout the Bible.

...so ultimately it isn't a matter of Christians "picking and choosing", but a matter of how the Bible actually presents itself. It's worth remembering that the Bible isn't one book. It's 66 books, with 40 different authors, over thousands of years. It's reflective of not simply of a series of laws and beliefs, but of the relationship between God and man throughout our history.

The law was there to serve just two purposes: to show us that we fail to live up to God's standards, and to point to Christ. And from Christ onward, we live not by law, but by grace.

The whole book of Romans centers around this point. It's worth a read.




well than why do we have Dan Cathy and a vary large number of other suppose christians condemning homosexuals using these laws and living by some of these laws and not living by others?







precisely because they misunderstand the points above.
A large part of the church these days teaches what is called "replacement theology", that is, that 'the church is the new Israel'. They believe that God has rejected the Jews and replaced them with the Church has His 'new chosen people'.

This is not the picture the Bible teaches.

...this is also why you have Christenings and infant baptism - as part of the idea that "because Jewish babies were circumcised at 8 days, we should baptise infants". This is a misunderstanding of the fact that the Jewish system was national, and physical... the Christian system is not. It is spiritual.

I wish I could write you a long thesis about the church, defending it and telling you that it has everything right, and it's in great shape... but I can't.
The church itself is rapidly evolving into an entity that barely reflects the One it claims to serve. This is why, when I answer your questions, I quote the Bible, and not Dan Cathy... or even any other Christian scholar... because while Christians are often wrong... the Bible isn't.


when im talking about "these suppose christians" im talking about those that believe in what Dan Cathy is saying and supporting. This whole thread is in relation to the chic fil a issue. im not talking about all christians.
im talking about those who choose one legalist side and not the other... which is the point the OP has been making all along.



edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
when im talking about "these suppose christians" im talking about those that believe in what Dan Cathy is saying and supporting. This whole thread is in relation to the chic fil a issue. im not talking about all christians.
im talking about those who choose one legalist side and not the other... which is the point the OP has been making all along.



edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)


I understand that.
... and my point is that the view on homosexuality that Dan Cathy espouses isn't obtained solely from Old Testament law. If it were, it would be logically inconsistent to apply it to a modern scenario (as the OP points out, why follow that particular part, and not the laws regarding menstruation?).

The point being, OT law was given purely to Israel, NT Christians are under grace, not law... therefore only those elements of OT law that are reiterated in the new apply directly and specifically to gentiles. Homosexuality falls under this umbrella; Jewish law regarding hygiene and menstrual cleanliness does not.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
btw thnx Awen24 for taking the time out of your day to respond to my questions/concerns respectfully.

sadly i still find that the bible is used for agendas. used by humans with their subjective agendas to condemn people.


if people are going to misinterpret the bible, and use vague interpretations and condemn a whole group of people such as homosexuals and go to great extrems to do this i find that sad.

instead i feel people should use this energy to focus on LOVE AND TOLERANCE. you know if they are going to interpret anything out of the bible at all. The Jesus red letters????

that at least gets us somewhere better. instead of whats happening now with this whole chicken biscuit issue.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter
when im talking about "these suppose christians" im talking about those that believe in what Dan Cathy is saying and supporting. This whole thread is in relation to the chic fil a issue. im not talking about all christians.
im talking about those who choose one legalist side and not the other... which is the point the OP has been making all along.



edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)


I understand that.
... and my point is that the view on homosexuality that Dan Cathy espouses isn't obtained solely from Old Testament law. If it were, it would be logically inconsistent to apply it to a modern scenario (as the OP points out, why follow that particular part, and not the laws regarding menstruation?).

The point being, OT law was given purely to Israel, NT Christians are under grace, not law... therefore only those elements of OT law that are reiterated in the new apply directly and specifically to gentiles. Homosexuality falls under this umbrella; Jewish law regarding hygiene and menstrual cleanliness does not.



i understand this as well. at least i think so.

however homosexuality as a term in the bible is suspect to begin with. and Dan Cathy and his huge legion of right wing christian supporters (and or others) seem to not follow the fact that they are under grace not law by condemning a whole group of people with the law. especially some of those who dont even believe in the bible or God to begin with.






edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
btw thnx Awen24 for taking the time out of your day to respond to my questions/concerns respectfully.

sadly i still find that the bible is used for agendas. used by humans with their subjective agendas to condemn people.

if people are going to misinterpret the bible, and use vague interpretations and condemn a whole group of people such as homosexuals and go to great extrems to do this i find that sad.

instead i feel people should use this energy to focus on LOVE AND TOLERANCE. you know if they are going to interpret anything out of the bible at all. The Jesus red letters????

that at least gets us somewhere better. instead of whats happening now with this whole chicken biscuit issue.


you're very welcome, I've enjoyed the discussion.

I certainly agree in terms of people using the Bible to promote an agenda. Like I said earlier, the Bible isn't a social and political platform, it's so much more than that. If people are going to push any agenda from the Bible, it should be Christ's agenda, which is purely and simply to tell the world about His rescue mission for mankind.

...and while I disagree in that I don't feel that tolerance should extend to tolerating that which is sin; the Bible is very clear on the fact that while the church shouldn't tolerate sin WITHIN the church, we have no basis to expect the world to meet those same standards.

Anyway. Thanks to you, too.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
i feel christians should focus on helping the poor, fighting injustice in the world and start reflecting the LOVE that JESUS has come to show us to apply to the world.

this whole chicken biscuit issue is a sad misfire on suppose Christians. This seems what Ghandi was talking about and what essentially Jesus rebuked pharisees for.


this further in rages people against christianity/culture and divides.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter
btw thnx Awen24 for taking the time out of your day to respond to my questions/concerns respectfully.

sadly i still find that the bible is used for agendas. used by humans with their subjective agendas to condemn people.

if people are going to misinterpret the bible, and use vague interpretations and condemn a whole group of people such as homosexuals and go to great extrems to do this i find that sad.

instead i feel people should use this energy to focus on LOVE AND TOLERANCE. you know if they are going to interpret anything out of the bible at all. The Jesus red letters????

that at least gets us somewhere better. instead of whats happening now with this whole chicken biscuit issue.


you're very welcome, I've enjoyed the discussion.

I certainly agree in terms of people using the Bible to promote an agenda. Like I said earlier, the Bible isn't a social and political platform, it's so much more than that. If people are going to push any agenda from the Bible, it should be Christ's agenda, which is purely and simply to tell the world about His rescue mission for mankind.


i can buy that. sadly its condemnation of people that has gripped the christian culture.



Originally posted by Awen24
...and while I disagree in that I don't feel that tolerance should extend to tolerating that which is sin; the Bible is very clear on the fact that while the church shouldn't tolerate sin WITHIN the church, we have no basis to expect the world to meet those same standards.


exactly. within the church. very well said.
its fine having a subjective opinion on sin but when you legislate it/bring into the government arena its BAD.




Originally posted by Awen24
Anyway. Thanks to you, too.






posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


The reason there was the "Old Testament" was because people wanted to "do" something to earn God's favor.

God said ok you want to "do" something here follow these "laws"

And so God set them down. And man or woman can not follow all the laws God gave.

Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill the Law.

Gay and Lesbian sex is condemned not the person.

Just like having sex with animals

A person can be gay and still be righteous in God's eyes. As long as gay or lesbian sex is not practiced.

Christians don't follow the Old Testament we follow the New.

We are under Grace NOT under the Law

Oh and Homosexuality IS condemned in the NEW TESTAMENT TOO! Along with many other sins



edit on 3-8-2012 by ccsct203 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Why do some of you men point fingers at Chick Fil on the subject of female employees? How many of you men sleep in the same bed with a woman while she is menstrating? You bunch of hypocrites!



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccsct203
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


The reason there was the "Old Testament" was because people wanted to "do" something to earn God's favor.

God said ok you want to "do" something here follow these "laws"

And so God set them down. And man or woman can not follow all the laws God gave.

Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill the Law.

Gay and Lesbian sex is condemned not the person.

Just like having sex with animals

A person can be gay and still be righteous in God's eyes. As long as gay or lesbian sex is not practiced.

Christians don't follow the Old Testament we follow the New.

We are under Grace NOT under the Law

Oh and Homosexuality IS condemned in the NEW TESTAMENT TOO! Along with many other sins



edit on 3-8-2012 by ccsct203 because: (no reason given)



christians should follow what Jesus said instead of following what someone thinks the new testament is saying or their own personal views on what they interpet the new testament is saying in regards to homosexuality. imho

again i already covered an interpretation of the homosexuality term not being used in the bible...


But we know that there was no word for “homosexual/ity” in any language until 1868 when it was coined by German Christian Ethicist Helmut Thielike in a critical response to a Prussian sodomy law. The word mistranslated as ‘homosexual/homosexual offender’ in certain Biblical translations, is ‘arsenokoitai’. A word meaning ‘man-bed’ (literally). It has been translated throughout history as ‘pervert’ (*the most accurate), and ‘masturbator’(during Martin Luther’s era; but that is also a mistranslation). ‘Pervert’ or ‘perversion’ is the best translation as the last time it was used in the Classical era (and specifically by a Classical church leader) in the 2nd Century AD to condemn men who were having anal sex with their wives. Not homosexual acts or homosexuality itself.



seems suspect. instead focus on love. thats not suspect.
christians should stop focusing on chic fil a hate.




edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Why do some of you men point fingers at Chick Fil on the subject of female employees? How many of you men sleep in the same bed with a woman while she is menstrating? You bunch of hypocrites!



did u miss the point of the post? some people aren't christians so they could care less about legalism in the bible.


edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Um, the old testament is the hebrew bible. It was included in the biblical canon for it's prophetic significance as well as understanding where we came from. it is the history of the hebrew people. God doesn't declare menstruation an abomination. The reason why women were considered unclean is because there were no sanitary napkins back in those days so when a woman bled, it had a tendency to make a mess. It was about decreasing people's chances to be infected by bloodborne pathogens. This cannot be compared to homosexuality in any way. Menstruation is a natural process for the female body that he engineered. If God engineerd 2 people of the same sex to have sex with eachother he would have made it where 2 men could get pregnant or 2 women, rather than require sperm from a male and an ova from a female to create a child. Form determines function.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Bigoted douche? Really? I thought he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights... guess not. And secondly, Chick-Fil-A IS a corporation, it cannot feel anything. Hate, love, fear, remorse anything. To speak of it if it can or does is a reification fallacy. It's not a logical/rational point.

Dude....
*facepalm*.
Really? Yes, they declared that "corporations" are "people"......and their chief officers are free to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. But that "corporation" did not write a check to a club, the chief officer did......

and so, for you to dismiss it on grounds that this organization....this corporation....is "separate from" the people that run it, that profit from it, and that choose to "donate" (lobby) for oppression, is ridiculous.

THE MAN DID WHAT HE DID. It doesn't matter if he's an unemployed Joe Dirt sitting in his recliner saying "Ima donate 5M to the anti-guy cause" , or he's a Chief (Whatever) Officer of some corporation, it is
HIM
TALKING
AND
PAYING
...
And it's just wrong.



I suggest looking up what a reification fallacy is. Dan Cathy made the remark in an interview.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


What do you mean "how so"? What's the point of postulating if they should ban menstruating women when they have no history of banning anyone? We all know why this thread was made, lets not play games.


they dont have to have a history of banning anyone for anything for the OP to have made the point in this thread.

the game that is actually still being played apparently is dodging the crux/point of the post.








I didn't dodge anything, I addressed the issue of menstruation in my initial post.



you sure did dodge a point of the thread. i will let you find it. its like a where's waldo only WAY easier...


"Do you reject parts of Leviticus? Would you be happy, after reading and accepting Leviticus, to sit next to a menstruating woman who is unclean and disgusting? Do you think homosexuals should be put to death, or merely barred from marriage?"



I covered already about when Leviticus was written and today in my initial post.

I don't think women who are menstruating are 'unclean and disgusting'?

Why are you asking a New Covenant Christian about Levitical law anyways??


edit on 3-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
People are fighting a proxy war over a chicken sandwich - one side can't say how they feel so they buy the sandwich & the other side is jamming that sandwich down your throat whether you like it or not & the only guy making money is the guy killin the chickens. Pretty stupid - imo.

Just say how you feel & leave them chickens alone!

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join