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: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


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.

I think you make an excellent point, Dennis, and I suggest an even more helpful and straightforward remedy for these foolish debates over scripture.

GET RID OF ALL THE TRANSLATIONS and produce ONE VERSION that all of the readers (I'm not one, btw) have to use, then there wouldn't be these idiotic comparisons and nu-unhing among the "faithful" to begin with.

Just sayin'. The thing is obsolete and causes a lot more trouble than it's worth (if it ever did any good at all).

Might as well argue over whether Credence Clearwater sang "There is a bathroom on the right" or "There is a bad moon on the rise." Changes the whole thing, eh?

EDIT: The "Word of God" , eh? "Speaking in tongues" is a sign of the power of the most high or whoever, right? (And just for those who might still not get that concept, 'speaking in tongues' means that everyone understands in their own language --"Tongue"--, no matter what LANGUAGE --Tongue --the speaker is using.) If that book is God's Word, he rather SUCKS at "speaking in tongues." Heck, he can't even manage to get everyone who speaks ONE tongue to agree! This is an inspirational speaker? No. This is confusing, convoluted nonsense.

My kids, and their peers, even while in middle school, were able to identify a poor teacher and refute stupid rules -- like switching lockers with a best friend whose locker is closer to your homeroom and vice versa, when it would be impossible to make it there and back AND leave half of your books (another rule) in time for the bell. Thought up this very good solution by themselves, my son and his friend.

The principal refused to allow it!! Our only hope lies in that generation now -- the millennials -- who are just now in their early 20s and struggling to enter the adult world.

Praise all forces of Nature that they DO have critical thinking skills!!




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




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
We have people here claiming the OT is something they don't have to consider in light of the events in the NT.

So my questions are:

As Christians, do you consider the OT canon?

Do you consider the God of the OT as your God?

If so, why would you not listen to his "advice"?

If you dont consider the OT canon, then why would you bother with it?

Okay, so Jesus preached love and tolerance in the NT. So what would be your justifications for going against that and donating to groups that want to "deport gays"?


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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


When it comes to translations that's messy...and cross referencing is really the only way. The original language of all the books are not the same and so the best way to read the bible is learn a couple of languages and read them as they were written. This is why many theologians and theological study programs learn and use the original language of the books as to preserve the true meanings.


Originally posted by TsukiLunar
We have people here claiming the OT is something they don't have to consider in light of the events in the NT.

So my questions are:

As Christians, do you consider the OT canon?

Canon how exactly? Assuming you mean in a historical or fictional sense (depending on what you believe) I think it is. After all Jesus himself references it so why would it not be "canon" it is there and it existed.

Do you consider the God of the OT as your God?

He is one and the same. If you have some tricky little "aha!" comeback for such an answer than be more specific as to what your getting at in the question

If so, why would you not listen to his "advice"?

Advice? Who says we don't? Laws? I have no reason to follow laws of the old testament that have no bearing on the christian way of life (IE almost none of them)

If you dont consider the OT canon, then why would you bother with it?

N/A for this one (obviously as I do). It is still a source of wisdom and lessons all its own no matter if it is not "canon" to the new testament or not. If you believe the Bible to be historical then it is an important account of the religions history

Okay, so Jesus preached love and tolerance in the NT. So what would be your justifications for going against that and donating to groups that want to "deport gays"?

This question has little relevance to me as I don't donate to such groups (knowingly) nor do I really care about any of that stuff...what another believes and does is their choice. I have not defended the owner of chick-fil-a and his opinions and beliefs are his own. I can't speak for him, what he means, what he intends, or what he does.


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

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

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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


When it comes to translations that's messy...and cross referencing is really the only way. The original language of all the books are not the same and so the best way to read the bible is learn a couple of languages and read them as they were written.

Which should NOT be necessary -- if the Bible is given into the hands of laymen, which for a long time it wasn't -- for exactly this reason! That the "preachers" (by whatever title they use) are the only ones who really "get it" gives them the authority and power to make up the rules as they go along, scaring the crap out of people who are too ill-educated to read it on their own and "get it."

It's asinine. There is NO OTHER SUBJECT in the world that requires such linguistic acrobatics and prowess. I happen to be bilingual, a degreed student of language/culture/literature...and I know all about what "lost in translation" means. I worked for several years as a second-language teacher, designing my own curriculum and helping groups of workers to begin to understand the most common non-English language they came across. That was the one and only time in my life that a fabulous, good-paying job was dropped in my lap by the woman who got the grant to start up the program.

I got rave reviews. I also worked as a formal interpreter in crisis situations (ERs, courtrooms, etc), and a translator of legal documents of a sensitive nature as well. I know what it takes to get a translation accurate enough that it reflects not only the WORDS, but the MEANINGS....

and for the Bible to be available in so many languages, so poorly translated and interpreted, is what I would call "blasphemous".... its intention as it stands IS to confuse and leave one wondering what in the hell they are supposed to think. This breeds fear, loathing, and error, and it should not be that way if it's to be used as a universal guide to the Abrahamic God.

It astounds me that it still carries such weight with some folks... it's complicated enough using a Chinese-origin "instruction sheet" in their version of English to put together a child's trike or a bookshelf. This stupid "translation monster" that is "The Bible" is to be used for putting together a working, effective LIFE? REALLYY?????!!!

*facepalm and deep sigh*

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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Perhaps and I understand where you are coming from. But translation is an interpretation and not always perfect at that. The Bible IS translated into many many languages so everyone can read it nowadays.

As to why cant the original books of the Bible be one language? The different books are all written thousands of years apart and by numerous authors.

More so the Bible as we know it is a compilation of many BOOKS...literal books that is not just a term used in the bible similar to a chapter or verse.

Also where do you see it translated wrong? Are you speaking of what I assume is the old king james version using "unclean" instead of saying "Ceremonially unclean"?

I bet if you read the whole chapter in the king james version it lays it out clear enough (I haven't read the book of Leviticus myself in a long time lol...especially in KJ so I cant tell you off the top of my head). You cant exactly take one word that is interpreted to simply mean "unclean" in the literal sense and call it all blasphemy...thats a bit extreme and simply a matter of the one reading not reading the entire book or relevant passages before that set the intentions and vocabulary of the book.

You must also consider the authors intent. The book was written to lay out specific laws in regards to ceremonies. just that knowledge alone should tell almost anyone that unclean is speaking about ceremonially unclean (it isnt spitting laws about dirt on your hands)
edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 





Canon how exactly? Assuming you mean in a historical or fictional sense (depending on what you believe) I think it is. After all Jesus himself references it so why would it not be "canon" it is there and it existed.


Okay, so you consider it to be true. As such, everything that God notes in it should be still relevant.




He is one and the same. If you have some tricky little "aha!" comeback for such an answer than be more specific as to what your getting at in the question


Aha!(just kidding)

So he is the same God that you worship. I just asked that because he seems as if he had some sort of mood swing between the OT and the NT. First he was all about vengeance, then about forgiveness.

So he is the same God, just with an attitude adjustment?



Advice? Who says we dont? Laws? I have no reason to follow laws of the old testament that have no bearing on the christian way of life (IE almost none of them)


But it stands to reason, if that is the case, then he still frowns on shaving your beard and cutting your hair(Along with other things, have you read my first post)? Christian or not?




This question has little relevance to me as I don't donate to such groups (knowingly) nor do I really care about any of that stuff...what another believes and does is their choice. I have not defended the owner of chick-fil-a and his opinions and beliefs are his own. I can't speak for him, what he means, what he intends, or what he does.


Then you are a follow of Christ(not of God, since if you were a follower of him then your opinions and actions would try to mirror his own) and I thank you for your contribution to this thread.

I will add that since Mr. Cathy has shown such "intolerance", does that mean he is not a christian?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


Perhaps and I understand where you are coming from.

Good. So we're getting somewhere.

But

ahhAHah! The big "But" that negates the previous "agreement".....
go ahead....*winces*

translation is an interpretation and not always perfect at that.

Right....so.....

The Bible IS translated into many many languages so everyone can read it nowadays.

And every single one of those interpretations is DIFFERENT. Therefore, translation FAIL.

You don't need to give me the low-down on all the various "excuses" for it, how far between the books were written and then put in a different order, reassembled, author's names substituted, portions edited, redacted, revised, parts thrown out or burned (in case someone found them -- oh noez!! -- if they read THAT they'll know we're up to something!!!)

But for other readers, I won't protest you addressing this tired issue once again. There are new members every day who might not be aware of those things.

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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Your pulling a lot of things out of no where...find me these translation fallacies and then you can say every translation is wrong...what your saying has no weight because it has no proof behind it...

When I speak of different I don't mean wrong...but not the same...for instance greek has 3 types of love (cant remember the words cause I am not a theologian and I haven't gotten that deep into it lol)

but "love" in english is simply one word

if not translated carefully and if a person doesn't take time to reference where they can than its easy to lose specifics.

This can be solved in english by referring to familial love, friendship love, and erotic love. So if someone doesn't specify which one its talking about in the translation than some meaning can be lost...but to call the whole thing blasphemous and fail is a bit extreme lol
edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


Your pulling a lot of things out of no where...find me these translation fallacies and then you can say every translation is wrong...what your saying has no weight because it has no proof behind it...

!!!
These "translation fallacies" can be found right here, in this very forum, every. single. day. Round and round they go, disagreeing on what it meant....

the proof of what I am saying is in the FACT that the TRUTH is true for EVERYONE, not just a few select polylingual theology students.

Although I am highly interested in comparative religions and mythologies and also the use of language, I am not interested in the Bible except as a phenomenon of mankind's ineptitude and hamster-wheel antics in understanding that which "passes understanding".

What I'm saying carries plenty of weight, whether you want to shoulder it and step up, or not, is your decision.
With all due respect, of course. Go for it -- make a universally efficient and ACCURATE version of the Bible. Good on ya, for doing that!!

I wouldn't even begin to try. It's a disaster of tangled fly-fishing line, better to cut the whole hopeless knot off the reel and start over.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim


It is quite clear that menstruating women are disgusting and a threat to anyone who even comes near them. Certainly not appropriate for a restaurant where normal people will be eating!

I think it's obvious Chick-Fil-A should ban these types, and have vaginal checks for every woman who enters, for the safety of other "clean" customers, of course.

The double-standards of Christians are astounding!



I am wondering if you are as diligent to defend the obvious societal bias and discrimination
against left-handed people.
It is everywhere you look.
edit on 4-8-2012 by oufan06 because: content



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Here's a question - if two men or two women want to be married and they don't engage in homosexual activity with each other is that wrong? If so why? Plenty of people who are married don't have sex...as many married men will sadly attest...



What does the bible have to say about that? Anyone?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Dennislp3
 





Canon how exactly? Assuming you mean in a historical or fictional sense (depending on what you believe) I think it is. After all Jesus himself references it so why would it not be "canon" it is there and it existed.


Okay, so you consider it to be true. As such, everything that God notes in it should be still relevant.

Not exactly. Because you are referencing laws and the like that were handed to specific people that are no longer running around as was in the Bible.




He is one and the same. If you have some tricky little "aha!" comeback for such an answer than be more specific as to what your getting at in the question


Aha!(just kidding)

So he is the same God that you worship. I just asked that because he seems as if he had some sort of mood swing between the OT and the NT. First he was all about vengeance, then about forgiveness.

So he is the same God, just with an attitude adjustment?

No it would be more accurate to say he is the same God with a change of plans.

According to the old testament he resided on earth in the Tabernacle and he moved place to place with the 12 tribes etc. Well eventually people messed all that up and he stopped doing that (as he said he would if they messed it up in short).

After all that people were not following the laws they were before as tightly and people were drifting away and blah blah blah long story short he needed a way to make his salvation and connection with people available on a much broader scale. Thats where Jesus comes in to act as a sacrifice and nullify old sacrifices and etc. When it comes to exact reference scripture it is a LOT both prophesies from the old and references in the new testament.

By doing this he also ousted the corrupt pharisees (priests) that were leading everyone astray. Which at the time were the ONLY people that could make sacrifices to god on peoples behalf and the like. In essence he bridged the connection between God and Man by removing the need for sacrifice.

I will add on that my explanation is PROBABLY wrong or "off" in this way or that way and I am not asking you to take it word for word as some absolute answer. It is my quick and dirty explanation of a topic that takes lots of referencing and study. Also its 8am and I haven't even gone to bed lol




Advice? Who says we dont? Laws? I have no reason to follow laws of the old testament that have no bearing on the christian way of life (IE almost none of them)


But it stands to reason, if that is the case, then he still frowns on shaving your beard and cutting your hair(Along with other things, have you read my first post)? Christian or not?

Those are laws in old books once again handed down to the 12 tribes of isreal in regards to ceremonial proceedings...we don't have those tribes or those proceedings anymore. Those laws also pertained to the PRIESTS. Don't forget that Leviticus was written as a rule book primarily for priests!




This question has little relevance to me as I don't donate to such groups (knowingly) nor do I really care about any of that stuff...what another believes and does is their choice. I have not defended the owner of chick-fil-a and his opinions and beliefs are his own. I can't speak for him, what he means, what he intends, or what he does.


Then you are a follow of Christ(not of God, since if you were a follower of him then your opinions and actions would try to mirror his own) and I thank you for your contribution to this thread.

I will add that since Mr. Cathy has shown such "intolerance", does that mean he is not a christian?

Yes I suppose you can put it that way...there is little need to solidify definitions and set things in stone so extremely (IE if you do X yo follow God and if you do Y you follow Christ) as that just gets messy and beside the point really.

I follow the teachings and ways of Christ which according to what I believe is a part of God and was sent to "reiterate" how things would be done to fix the system (much like using the flood to kill everyone sinning...cept MUCH less drastic)

As for Mr. Cathy? As I stated I cant exactly speak for him yadada I can say that he doesnt exactly exhibit all of christs examples by such a belief. It is ENTIRELY FINE to be against gays (IE me for instance I dont believe in that and personally see it as "sinful/wrong" but at the same time I do not hate or shun people that do that) ,that said, Christ himself spent time with harlots and tax collectors and NON christians. He ate diner with them he shared tales with them he healed them he did all kinds of stuff for/with them...

So to exclude or hate or purposefully badger/harass/kill/any manner of spiteful or hateful things towards these people is wrong and counter productive to Christs message.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato
Here's a question - if two men or two women want to be married and they don't engage in homosexual activity with each other is that wrong? If so why? Plenty of people who are married don't have sex...as many married men will sadly attest...



What does the bible have to say about that? Anyone?


I am not gonna look up a Bible verse for that as I dont want to dig with it (call me lazy =P) but you can google that I am sure.

That said.

The main aspect of marriage that makes marriage...marriage...is sex

homosexuality is an act of sex with a member of the same sex.

so logically what your saying is a bit redundant as your marriage is little more than you living together. If there were no homosexual acts involved I would assume nothing would be wrong with it.

Westernized marriage and Biblical marriage are not exactly the same and so you are getting into a totally different topic.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Well I don't know what to tell you...you seem to think that because the bible is translated at all its all horribly wrong and should not be. Sooooo....Not sure what your looking for.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


Yes I suppose you can put it that way...there is little need to solidify definitions and set things in stone so extremely (IE if you do X yo follow God and if you do Y you follow Christ) as that just gets messy and beside the point really.

I follow the teachings and ways of Christ which according to what I believe is a part of God and was sent to "reiterate" how things would be done to fix the system (much like using the flood to kill everyone sinning...cept MUCH less drastic)

As for Mr. Cathy? As I stated I cant exactly speak for him yadada I can say that he doesnt exactly exhibit all of christs examples by such a belief. It is ENTIRELY FINE to be against gays (IE me for instance I dont believe in that and personally see it as "sinful/wrong" but at the same time I do not hate or shun people that do that) ,that said, Christ himself spent time with harlots and tax collectors and NON christians. He ate diner with them he shared tales with them he healed them he did all kinds of stuff for/with them...

So to exclude or hate or purposefully badger/harass/kill/any manner of spiteful or hateful things towards these people is wrong and counter productive to Christs message.

(note, Dennis, if you put a [ /quote ] after the passage you are quoting, your own words don't get stuck in there looking like they were part of that member's words...)

anyhoo....
your points again, are valid. Try telling the part about "not carved in stone"

(
which phrase alludes to the ten commandments, right? carved in stone, and supposedly hidden away in a box with "4 bezillion nuclear bomb-strength melting vaporization powered God" to boot --- )


to the Jews and Muslims as well as the "Christians". If there is "little need" to separate X as following God's word, from Y as following Christ's teachings, then what's up with all the mudslinging hatred of the three Abrahamic faiths? Tell them to knock off the zeal and clean up their acts, and you'll be making incredible progress!!



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Oh I agree all the fighting is garbage thats for sure lol. As for the quote thing...yeah I was at the word limit so I couldn't fit those in >.<

And when I was pointing out the X and Y thing I was mostly meaning its a rocky road to classify each and every action of a person lol...clearly distinctions are made where necessary and that's all fine and dandy
edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dennislp3

The main aspect of marriage that makes marriage...marriage...is sex



Hooold on. How's that? I was having plenty of sex before I got married. Marriage does not confer that ability. How can that possibly be the "main aspect of marriage?"

A short list of the changes that marriage bestowed on me that I did not have before I was married:

I received a piece of paper saying "this one is married"
My filing status for my taxes changed
My husband now has a legal right to all of my assets and properties...and debts (suckaaaahhhh)
Should I have a child now, the child is legally considered "his" automatically (whether or not it IS his)
I am able to obtain health insurance through his employer under a "family" plan
People call us "married"

There are some other things in there, but you get my point. Sex was not something new that got magically introduced once I was married - it was already there.

So I ask you again, if two people of the same sex want to be married but they do not engage in homosexual activity together what basis is there to stop them?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

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)


Well, there is no issue on Earth that everyone believes so that statement is sorta silly. And besides, you're not the first person to articulate that most people would reject it...

You ripped that off from Jesus 2,000 years ago. (Matthew 7:13:14)


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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
If Chik-fila has "spoken out" against gays because of the bible, then these issues should follow.


I dont see Chik-fila speaking out against these sinners.


You keep saying spoken out" (like many others), yet nobody spoke out. The president was asked a question about his stance on gay marriage (not gays) and he gave an honest answer. Why are you so militant about what other people's opinions are? You think people should all be forced to adopt your opinions?
edit on 3-8-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)


exactly he has a right to his opinion and beliefs just as you do yours. you dont question your own beliefs and are attacking a company as a whole over the answers of one mans PERSONAL opinion.. believe it or not.. your the one being prejudice of him having the audacity to say what he believes in. (thats directed at the original poster)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato

Originally posted by Dennislp3

The main aspect of marriage that makes marriage...marriage...is sex



Hooold on. How's that? I was having plenty of sex before I got married. Marriage does not confer that ability. How can that possibly be the "main aspect of marriage?"

A short list of the changes that marriage bestowed on me that I did not have before I was married:

I received a piece of paper saying "this one is married"
My filing status for my taxes changed
My husband now has a legal right to all of my assets and properties...and debts (suckaaaahhhh)
Should I have a child now, the child is legally considered "his" automatically (whether or not it IS his)
I am able to obtain health insurance through his employer under a "family" plan
People call us "married"

There are some other things in there, but you get my point. Sex was not something new that got magically introduced once I was married - it was already there.

So I ask you again, if two people of the same sex want to be married but they do not engage in homosexual activity together what basis is there to stop them?


lol I never said marriage gives you the magical power to have sex. I am just saying that from a Biblical standpoint the whole idea of marriage is to more or less in crude terms declare who you are having sex with the rest of your life.

In the Bible (old testament here) it talks about how if you had sex before marriage you had to marry that person (such as a slave or a virgin...a non virgin would be adultery) to keep the sanctity of marriage and the union between 2 people. As how its "designed" according to the Bible it is supposed to be one man and one woman who create a physical, spiritual, emotional, and social bond unlike that which they make with another human being to keep a strong family structure. To not follow such ways of handling it all cheapens sex, cheapens the person you do it with, etc because its not the same bond as if you had sex with one person in your life.

As to touch on your question? Where have I ONCE said I am against gay marriage? I do not agree with homosexuality but I have no right or reason to stop one person or another to declare themselves married to one another.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join