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: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


These shenanigans make me hungry.
I have always enjoyed that chicken sandwich and waffle fries even if i can't get em on sunday.




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I'm exhausted from another post on this topic today but... on my way home I couldn't get the movie "The Wall" out of my head. That scene when they're rounding up members of the audience who "aren't right" and putting them up against the wall... This passionate hatred of gays is truly frightening to me, especially when it's a selective interpretation of one book. I thought one religion wasn't allowed to dictate how we live our lives in America?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
You don't read so well, do you? You can defend the traditional concept of marriage AND defend gay marriage - all at the same time. Yes, it is possible. One is not exclusive of the other. Do you think you can comprehend that concept?


I read just fine.

You stated


Originally posted by kaylaluv

The people who go out and vote on this are haters of gays - plain and simple.


You have made your position very clear.

According to you and your narrow bigoted perspective, all of the voters who voted down gay marriage in 31 states are gay haters!

You clearly are a fully paid up member of the politically correct thought police.




You say people who oppose gay marriage are haters of gays. I say you are a politically correct bigot.



edit on 4-8-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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)



uh probably and obviously because apparently some of these suppose christians are going by old legalist bible laws (and not the others/pickers and choosers) and condemning non christians and or homosexuals.

im asking not just about levitical laws. im questioning the whole legalist christian mentality. pharisees.



edit on 4-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Glass
I'm asking for the basic respect that you would give to any other random stranger, the kind of respect I would have shown you had you not gone on to post this crap.


Would I be correct that you are equating gay marriage with the "basic respect that you would give to any other random stranger"?

Wow. That is quite a leap.


Give then an inch...




Originally posted by Glass
Great, thanks for equating me with those people when you know nothing about me. I have never exposed myself in public in that way. I have more respect for myself than that.


I am glad that you find that sort of gay behavior offensive. Many people do.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


I don't really understand your statement. And there is a difference between legalism and holiness. The former I will join you in condemning.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


I don't really understand your statement. And there is a difference between legalism and holiness. The former I will join you in condemning.


of course there is a difference. im questioning Legalism and the condemnation of homosexuals by suppose christians via this whole chic fil a issue.
im glad we can come to agreement in condemning legalism and promote LOVE to homosexuals instead of hate.


edit on 4-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


I don't really understand your statement. And there is a difference between legalism and holiness. The former I will join you in condemning.


of course there is a difference. im questioning Legalism and the condemnation of homosexuals by suppose christians via this whole chic fil a issue.
im glad we can come to agreement in condemning legalism and promote LOVE to homosexuals instead of hate.


edit on 4-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)


I do not agree that being against something is "hate". I believe in the traditional view of marriage and I do not hate. The Bible only mentions 1 unforgivable sin and homosexuality isn't it. And I condemn Legalism, not holiness. The difference between the two is holiness is living righteously so that one looks right to God, legalism is living righteously so one looks right to other people. The difference isn't in speech or behavior but motivation.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypicalI do not agree that being against something is "hate". I believe in the traditional view of marriage and I do not hate.



i agree there as well in regards to the hate part. never said you did otherwise. (however i believe homosexuals should be allowed to be married if they want to). what im saying is the hating done by dan cathy and those that support his company funding gay hate groups. im not picking on you. never was picking on anyone in this post i was picking on chic fil a this entire post.




Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Bible only mentions 1 unforgivable sin and homosexuality isn't it. And I condemn Legalism, not holiness. The difference between the two is holiness is living righteously so that one looks right to God, legalism is living righteously so one looks right to other people. The difference isn't in speech or behavior but motivation.


again as ive said before im glad we can come to agreement in condemning legalism and promote LOVE to homosexuals instead of hate.
edit on 4-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


I love the homosexual just as I love the thief, the murderer, the man who covets, the prostitute, and the man who is full of pride. Christ died for all men, but told all men to go and sin no more. I don't condemn sinners because I myself am a sinner saved by grace. Christ is the ultimate example. He loved sinners yet didnt condone or engage in their sin. His message wasn't only love but repentance and freedom from the yoke of sin.

I don't know about this donating money thing. I don't watch the news and am really only aware of the comment Mr. Cathy made in the interview that started this current firestorm. I just cant comment on the donations, I havent looked into that honestly.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


I love the homosexual just as I love the thief, the murderer, the man who covets, the prostitute, and the man who is full of pride.


i dont equate homosexuals with the others at all. but you are free to have your subjective opinion about homosexuals as i am. we disagree there.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Christ died for all men, but told all men to go and sin no more. I don't condemn sinners because I myself am a sinner saved by grace. Christ is the ultimate example. He loved sinners yet didnt condone or engage in their sin. His message wasn't only love but repentance and freedom from the yoke of sin.


indeed. sunday school stuff.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I don't know about this donating money thing. I don't watch the news and am really only aware of the comment Mr. Cathy made in the interview that started this current firestorm. I just cant comment on the donations, I havent looked into that honestly.


ok understood.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 



Too bad God doesn't ask you or me when He ordains something. We're fallen man, we grade on a curve. God is righteous, He sees only sin or sinlessness. The homosexual doesn't commit the same severity of a sin as the murderer, but they're still going to the same Hell without Christ and repentance. If I struggle with lying and Billy struggled with homosexuality we're on the same train going to the same destination without Christ. He died for all men.. including homosexuals.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
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.


I've missed a lot of posts and I won't be able to catch up, but this has come up twice and it is a really poor argument.

1) It refers to everything the woman touches as unclean, and a man is supposed to not even come near a menstruating woman. That goes way beyond lack of hygiene due to not having sanitary pads.
2) While they may not have had name brand tampons, there were methods even back then of not getting your fluids over everything. It's a simply concept, make-shift pads were used
3) The biggest objection to this is that a supreme being would obviously instruct the people on how to create and use a sanitary pad, rather than just saying "Unclean, stay away!", which is ridiculous

As for comments regarding us not being under the OT law, I have also addressed this.

1) Leviticus is used most often by idiotic Christians to condemn Christianity, so referring to it is relevant regardless of whether we are under law, to point out the picking and choosing of passages and double-standards being used
2) The notion of a menstruating woman being "unclean" is, following my comments above, clearly a universal thing. It is not a law, it is a statement from God about the nature of menstruating women. "Stay away from them" may be a law, but God's thoughts on these women are quite clear and that is universal, regardless of nationality, race, religion, etc. The "unhygienic" argument fails as I explained above
3) As has already been mentioned the NT's opinion of homosexuality is at the least up for debate, and for something so important Jesus never ever mentions it. He tells us to love our neighbour as we love ourselves, and to worship God, not follow anti-gay agendas, and be full of hate. How many Christians come close to following Jesus' rules in the NT? Very few, certainly not the Chick-Fil-A guys, and all the morons who think it's better to flood into Chick-Fil-A showing their support for their hate, when they could be out feeding the homeless. Again, Jesus makes no mention of it in the NT, and the passages that do are at least up for debate.

I hope this helps.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Let's have a brief review of the Bible's view on menstruation, to show that it extends way beyond mere hygiene, and is referred to as a "sickness".

Notice God, in all his wisdom, does not instruct these people on how to create and use a sanitary pad, but prefers instead to treat the women as disgusting, sick and unclean, and to be avoided like the plague.

Leviticus 15:19-30
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Ezekiel 18:5-6
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman....



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 



Too bad God doesn't ask you or me when He ordains something. We're fallen man, we grade on a curve. God is righteous, He sees only sin or sinlessness. The homosexual doesn't commit the same severity of a sin as the murderer, but they're still going to the same Hell without Christ and repentance. If I struggle with lying and Billy struggled with homosexuality we're on the same train going to the same destination without Christ. He died for all men.. including homosexuals.



yes ive heard all that before many a times. i was raised in a catholic and protestant home. and not everyone believes this. only some people do. imho its hard to make this an objective statement for everyone (from beyond your opinion/faith) because everyone has their own path and their own way of viewing the world they live in. rhizome not just binary. thanks for sharing btw. much respect.
edit on 4-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I lol at how out of context things can get with cherry picking scripture...

Much like an everyday book scriptures are simply PARTS of a chapter. If I told you to only read small parts of a whole chapter of a book do you really think that you would understand everything you read in its intended context?

For a little history lesson on what the book Leviticus is about:
en.wikipedia.org...

The English name is from the Latin Leviticus, taken in turn from Greek and a reference to the Levites, the tribe from whom the priests were drawn. In addition to instructions for those priests, it also addresses the role and duties of the laity.

You cant simply take a single verse, splatter it around as an absolute and call it good.

Unclean refers to CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN.

There were very strict laws and ways of dealing with god and offerings etc.

Have a look at a different translation (new living) and read the whole thing...seriously people...

Leviticus 15:19-33 (New Living Translation)

19 "Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. If you touch her during that time, you will be defiled until evening. 20 Anything on which she lies or sits during that time will be defiled. 21 If you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe in water, and you will remain defiled until evening. 22 The same applies if you touch an object on which she sits, 23 whether it is her bedding or any piece of furniture. 24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her during this time, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain defiled for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be defiled. 25 "If the menstrual flow of blood continues for many days beyond the normal period, or if she discharges blood unrelated to her menstruation, the woman will be ceremonially unclean as long as the discharge continues. 26 Anything on which she lies or sits during that time will be defiled, just as it would be during her normal menstrual period. 27 If you touch her bed or anything on which she sits, you will be defiled. You will be required to wash your clothes and bathe in water, and you will remain defiled until evening. 28 "When the woman's menstrual discharge stops, she must count off a period of seven days. After that, she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day, she must bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons and present them to the priest at the entrance of the Tabernacle. 30 The priest will offer one for a sin offering and the other for a whole burnt offering. In this way, the priest will make atonement for her before the LORD for her menstrual discharge. 31 "In this way, you will keep the people of Israel separate from things that will defile them, so they will not die as a result of defiling my Tabernacle that is right there among them. 32 These are the instructions for dealing with a man who has been defiled by a genital discharge or an emission of semen; 33 for dealing with a woman during her monthly menstrual period; for dealing with anyone, man or woman, who has had a bodily discharge of any kind; and for dealing with a man who has had intercourse with a woman during her period."


Notice how only a few posts up you see almost the exact same excerpt? Oh WAIT! they missed the ever crucial details that change EVERYTHING! The last few verses (which I underlined) that happen to change the ENTIRE meaning of the WHOLE thing!

It has very little to do with god seeing a woman and her period which he made as a bad thing. But when it came to entering his tabernacle and performing ceremonies he wants his people to be pure in body as well out of reverence and respect.

So really the topic should be something along the lines of "Should Chick-Fil-A ban menstruating women so that everyone can remain ceremoniously clean and able to perform sacrifices and the like to god?"

Old Testament Laws that changed with Jesus who replaced the archaic ritual sacrifice methods of before in a new covenant with God's people.

It was only unclean in regards to a specific location and set of activities...those being rituals and the tabernacle BOTH of which we no longer have.

The menstruation topic is null and void because we do not sacrifice things at temples like the days before Jesus.

I apologize if I missed someone making this point...but I don't recall seeing it...and on that note I have to say its pretty sad that I had to read through 11 pages of ignorance and the like (in the form of misquoting the bible and using specific areas of it to fit their needs) before someone simply said to read the WHOLE passage...way to go people...

I don't care if you don't like or don't believe in the bible...that's your own business...but don't mindlessly misconstrue it without studying any of it.

For those of you that read/believe in/ or would defend the Bible in a post such as this...READ the bible! study the context of the verse being presented and deal with it logically...don't get flustered and use a philosophical answer to reply to a simple misconception of the Bible. Often times these things can be handled with a TINY bit of reading and a few minutes of study. Cross referencing different translations and finding common meanings among each (or in cases like this more complete translations) can also solve many of these foolish debates.

For those that makes threads like this? Please do the above as well before you make your thread to avoid looking like an idiot. Nothing screams stupidity by taking fractions of a source material and not looking further into it before jumping to huge conclusions such as this.

edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: added more points

edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: Added pointers at the end



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by butcherguy

True Christians shouldn't have a problem rejecting Leviticus.



That would include the parts about homosexuality too, then.

Menstruation is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, by the way, in the same manner.


You're right, most non fundamentalist Christians don't have an issue with either, you are just trying to categorise everyone. As stated, they come from Leviticus in the Old Testament - which formed the basis of all the major Abrahamic faiths, you are making a Christ did not say these things, and in the New Testament he mentions no similar opinions on either subject.

You are making a big deal about this guy... why? It suits your agenda? I keep hearing he gives money to anti gay groups. As much as I may find doing that not a nice thing, are these groups illegal? Do they use violence?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
I keep hearing he gives money to anti gay groups. As much as I may find doing that not a nice thing, are these groups illegal? Do they use violence?




apparently (and this is what some homosexuals and civil rights supporters are in part up in arms about/understandably) Chick-fil-A funded the Family Research Council, which acted (successfully) to make sure Congress issued no condemnation of Uganda’s Death Penalty for the "Kill the Gays bill".


edit on 4-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Suspiria
Phew, and I thought ladies intimate hygiene products were expensive enough monthly. Now I'm supposed to buy two turtles and baby pigeons too..


*Typing from the shed*


ha ha ha
this made me laugh til it hurt.
you can get two high quality period turtles at the dollar store.

-subfab



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join