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: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


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.

What? I'm trying to follow along here, but these two statements confuse me.

There is "no issue on Earth that everyone believes"? Pretty sure everyone believes in gravity, sunshine, night, the moon, the stars, water, fire, soil, seasons....everyone believes women give birth and men do not; that children take a long time to grow to adulthood, that a Republic is not a Democracy....

And what would most people reject that the member ripped off from Jesus and articulated but not for the first time?




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dennislp3

Unclean refers to CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN.

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

It has very little to do with god seeing a woman and her period which he made as a bad thing.


Oh please. God refers to sex during menstruation as an abomination, for a start, and those partaking in it to be put to death. Menstruation is also referred to as "sickness". Nice try here, but no cigar.

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Menstruation is not only spoken of badly in Leviticus, for instance:

"In you men uncover their fathers' nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity." (Ezekiel 22:10)

Another passage regarding approaching a women during her menstruation:

"But if a man is just and does what is lawful and right; if he has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor's wife, nor approached a woman during her impurity;" (Ezekiel 18:5-6)

"If he has done any of these abominations, he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:13)

More from ezekiel:

"Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own ways and deeds; to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity."

God makes it quite clear that menstruation is a disgusting and unclean thing, and this goes way beyond mere ceremony.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





God makes it quite clear that menstruation is a disgusting and unclean thing, and this goes way beyond mere ceremony.


To be fair, maybe God hated the sight of blood? I know I get woozy when ever I see blood. Maybe he is the same?

Why would he specifically create a biological function he hated though? Was it completely necessary? Being the perfect and all powerful being he is, could he not find a work "work around"?

Wait, blood didn't exist until he created it.

He intentionally created something he didn't like only to condemn it?

Who wrote this crap?
edit on 4-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


Well, there is no issue on Earth that everyone believes so that statement is sorta silly. .




talk about silly statements...

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




Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And besides, you're not the first person to articulate that most people would reject it...


reject subjectivity and opinionated belief systems? faith? who says i was the first? your not the first to cite any of those sunday school bible study phrases either but thats not stopping you is it? LOL



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


misunderstood the phrase.
BUT anways, by your logic your whole sunday school preaching to the choir dialogue is a rip off. all this goes without saying.

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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Dennislp3

Unclean refers to CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN.

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

It has very little to do with god seeing a woman and her period which he made as a bad thing.


Oh please. God refers to sex during menstruation as an abomination, for a start, and those partaking in it to be put to death. Menstruation is also referred to as "sickness". Nice try here, but no cigar.

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Menstruation is not only spoken of badly in Leviticus, for instance:

"In you men uncover their fathers' nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity." (Ezekiel 22:10)

Another passage regarding approaching a women during her menstruation:

"But if a man is just and does what is lawful and right; if he has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor's wife, nor approached a woman during her impurity;" (Ezekiel 18:5-6)

"If he has done any of these abominations, he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:13)

More from ezekiel:

"Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own ways and deeds; to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity."

God makes it quite clear that menstruation is a disgusting and unclean thing, and this goes way beyond mere ceremony.


"Sickness" Is you pulling a poor argument using selective translations to suit your needs. This is the way it translates in ONE version (the kings James version).

bible.cc...

There is a large list of the verse in different translations. Among other translations you find "monthly period", "menstrous woman", and infirmity. The term "sickness" comes from the fact that during such a time a woman is weaker and more moody than usual and this gives off the appearance of an illness. You have to remember that at this time (thousands of years ago) medical knowledge was not the same it is now. Many things were considered "sicknesses" or "Illnesses" including natural pain from childbirth.

In regards to killing a man and woman if they have sex on her period? once again its against the laws at the time as it renders them ceremoniously unclean and in essence they are throwing that back at God and saying "whatever" and at that time killing people for crimes was a whole lot more common.

The stuff from Ezekial follows the same laws...just cause its in a different book does not mean it is talking about different laws. It is still speaking of cleanliness in regards to ceremony.

bible.cc...

Really at this point you are just trying to cram your point down my throat and make me wrong however you think you will...that's fine but your wasting your time. If you are so set in your ways as to believe it no other way then that's on you...believe away.

now if you want to pull a reference about menstruation being this vile horrid thing from the new testament then by all means we can argue over something new. But it seems you are not aware that the laws from the old testament are all the same laws and they apply to all jews.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





God makes it quite clear that menstruation is a disgusting and unclean thing, and this goes way beyond mere ceremony.


To be fair, maybe God hated the sight of blood? I know I get woozy when ever I see blood. Maybe he is the same?

Why would he specifically create a biological function he hated though? Was it completely necessary? Being the perfect and all powerful being he is, could he not find a work "work around"?

Wait, blood didn't exist until he created it.

He intentionally created something he didn't like only to condemn it?

Who wrote this crap?
edit on 4-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


As I stated before its a matter of physical purity in his presence and in regards to his sacrifices and your being prepared for specific rituals. Simple as that.

Cleanliness and spiritual cleanliness are both aspects of rituals at the time and being clean in both manners was the way that was required at the time.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


I wasn't trying to imply that you were against it by asking the question, just to get your take on the matter, as a person who responded. And I believe the term people use is "same sex marriage" not "gay marriage." Therefore, if the issue at hand is whether or not "same sex" marriage should be legal, as opposed to whether or not "gay marriage" should be legal it changes the conversation considerably.

There is no requirement, that I am aware of, that you have to engage in sex once you're married. No one follows up to make sure that you are and to confirm what type of sex you're having (once you're married it's perfectly plausible that all sorts of sexual arrangements could be taking place). There is also no requirement to have children and build a "family unit." You say these things are the "reason" for marriage but I would argue that you're wrong. I've studied the history of marriage (I can recommend a great book if you're interested) and for most of history marriage had to do with property rights first and foremost. Love and family were not major concerns. Children were considered property and the marriage cemented the father's claim to the children, that is all. Marriages exist for all sorts of reasons today. I know several couples who have married to obtain US citizenship - a popular use of the device.

What I'm getting at is: why all the fuss over the sex part as the main basis for marriage? It's a legal arrangement for people to use if they choose. All of the things you mention - raising children, establishing a family, and sex - can all be had without marriage. The only differences are the legal changes that occur once someone submits to being married. You can choose or not choose to do all the other stuff.

Which leads us back to...how can it be morally correct for same sex marriage to be illegal strictly on the basis of the religious opinions concerning sexual activity of one segment of the population? There is absolutely no basis for it when you look at marriage from a more universal standpoint, as opposed to one interpretation that is based in religion. After all marriage is made available to opposite sex couples who are not christian. Why are Christian rules allowed to establish policy?

I would argue that the popular vote is inappropriate on this issue. Same as it was during the other heinous period in US history called segregation.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


I wasn't trying to imply that you were against it by asking the question, just to get your take on the matter, as a person who responded. And I believe the term people use is "same sex marriage" not "gay marriage." Therefore, if the issue at hand is whether or not "same sex" marriage should be legal, as opposed to whether or not "gay marriage" should be legal it changes the conversation considerably.

There is no requirement, that I am aware of, that you have to engage in sex once you're married. No one follows up to make sure that you are and to confirm what type of sex you're having (once you're married it's perfectly plausible that all sorts of sexual arrangements could be taking place). There is also no requirement to have children and build a "family unit." You say these things are the "reason" for marriage but I would argue that you're wrong. I've studied the history of marriage (I can recommend a great book if you're interested) and for most of history marriage had to do with property rights first and foremost. Love and family were not major concerns. Children were considered property and the marriage cemented the father's claim to the children, that is all. Marriages exist for all sorts of reasons today. I know several couples who have married to obtain US citizenship - a popular use of the device.

What I'm getting at is: why all the fuss over the sex part as the main basis for marriage? It's a legal arrangement for people to use if they choose. All of the things you mention - raising children, establishing a family, and sex - can all be had without marriage. The only differences are the legal changes that occur once someone submits to being married. You can choose or not choose to do all the other stuff.

Which leads us back to...how can it be morally correct for same sex marriage to be illegal strictly on the basis of the religious opinions concerning sexual activity of one segment of the population? There is absolutely no basis for it when you look at marriage from a more universal standpoint, as opposed to one interpretation that is based in religion. After all marriage is made available to opposite sex couples who are not christian. Why are Christian rules allowed to establish policy?

I would argue that the popular vote is inappropriate on this issue. Same as it was during the other heinous period in US history called segregation.


There is hardly a fuss...I was just giving you the basics of what the Bible has to say on the purpose of marriage. Obviously it can be used for a whole spattering of things...anything can be used for anything someone wants to use it for.

And as I have already said, I don't feel any one person can or should stop one person from marrying another. But we also live in a democracy. Paint it how you want it or whatever but enough people feel they should not be able to. As for what people? Whoever it takes to make it a law that prevents same sex marriage from happening I guess? As for when I said gay marriage I meant same sex marriage or whatever...I am not trying to play politically correct semantics games with all that lol.

In the end it boils down to our government system and laws. Every government is different in regards to laws and how they are formed and repealed is different. The "enemy" is not other peoples beliefs but rather the choice of the government to sanction such things. Who is control of that? Certainly not all us little people (except collectively...but obviously not right now eh?). To be a little more accurate though states have control over sanctioning same sex marriage too. Some states allow it already.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Dennislp3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


But that still doesn't answer the question of why women are any less "unclean" today and why the same principle does not still apply.

As many have noted, it's an arbitrary picking and choosing of rules to suit one's personal feelings on the matter. I think the OP brings up the argument that old laws, when they are no longer useful or appropriate to a society, need to be revisited and struck down, as they were with menstruating women. It was determined that it is no longer useful or appropriate to bar women from participating in society because they get a visit from aunt flo because it does not adversely impact society, no matter what the bible says. In the same way, it was determined that it is no longer useful or appropriate to ban sodomy because it does not adversely impact society, no matter what the bible says. By the same taken, a reasonable person could argue that it is no longer useful or appropriate to prohibit same sex marriage because it does not adversely impact society, no matter what the bible says. Reasonable people should be able to recognize this, provided they are able to set aside their personal belief systems. Personal belief systems should not be affecting the legal rights of others when there is no reasonable basis for doing so.

It's like the Blue Laws in Massachusetts. People woke up one day and went "wait, why can't we buy alcohol on Sundays?"



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Homosexuality in the OT is not up for debate, people who think that have no idea who Jesus really is. He is the same God of the OT who dropped the hammer on Sodom and Gomorrah for doing that stuff. God never changes, he is who he is. Alot of the laws in the OT were fence laws, ceremonial laws mixed in with moral laws. The ceremonial laws were installed to teach people how to not come near to breaking the moral or Divine Law, ceremonial laws became a crutch and eventually people spent more time trying to keep those laws that they forgot the moral laws and turned it into tradition. With the advent of the New Covenant we come under his Grace and believing in him saves us through our faith, it is no longer an action of works in the flesh. The law was given so that we would know we cannot keep it because we are imperfect and if you failed in the tiniest bit you are condemned. Only God can keep his own laws, so he made the New Covenant to keep those laws for us because he can bear them for us because he is the only one who can and he writes those laws in our hearts and minds and dwells in us and he becomes our Conscience.

I'm not saying homosexuals cannot be saved, i am saying that after they are saved they will not be homosexuals anymore. He seals us so that we want and desire to obey him. A gay person who has been saved can fight the desire to sin, someone who is not cannot fight it at all.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dennislp3

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





God makes it quite clear that menstruation is a disgusting and unclean thing, and this goes way beyond mere ceremony.


To be fair, maybe God hated the sight of blood? I know I get woozy when ever I see blood. Maybe he is the same?

Why would he specifically create a biological function he hated though? Was it completely necessary? Being the perfect and all powerful being he is, could he not find a work "work around"?

Wait, blood didn't exist until he created it.

He intentionally created something he didn't like only to condemn it?

Who wrote this crap?
edit on 4-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


As I stated before its a matter of physical purity in his presence and in regards to his sacrifices and your being prepared for specific rituals. Simple as that.

Cleanliness and spiritual cleanliness are both aspects of rituals at the time and being clean in both manners was the way that was required at the time.


Sorry that makes no sense? Why would god create a biological function that he hates and condemns?

I know "menstruating" was a punishment for original sin. So why do women still menstruate even after Jesus "erased" original sin?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


But that still doesn't answer the question of why women are any less "unclean" today and why the same principle does not still apply.

As many have noted, it's an arbitrary picking and choosing of rules to suit one's personal feelings on the matter. I think the OP brings up the argument that old laws, when they are no longer useful or appropriate to a society, need to be revisited and struck down, as they were with menstruating women. It was determined that it is no longer useful or appropriate to bar women from participating in society because they get a visit from aunt flo because it does not adversely impact society, no matter what the bible says. In the same way, it was determined that it is no longer useful or appropriate to ban sodomy because it does not adversely impact society, no matter what the bible says. By the same taken, a reasonable person could argue that it is no longer useful or appropriate to prohibit same sex marriage because it does not adversely impact society, no matter what the bible says. Reasonable people should be able to recognize this, provided they are able to set aside their personal belief systems. Personal belief systems should not be affecting the legal rights of others when there is no reasonable basis for doing so.

It's like the Blue Laws in Massachusetts. People woke up one day and went "wait, why can't we buy alcohol on Sundays?"


Cleanliness is no longer under the same guidelines. Ceremonial cleanliness doesn't exist anymore...how many times do I have to repeat that? If a system exists that classifies certain things as one thing or another in regards to its daily workings and then is removed those are null and void are they not? And its not an arbitrary picking...The old laws don't exist anymore save a few...that changed with Jesus. So where is the confusion? Homosexuality is mentioned in the new testament and its not in a good way either...so don't act like it all comes from old testament stuff and no where else.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by Dennislp3

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





God makes it quite clear that menstruation is a disgusting and unclean thing, and this goes way beyond mere ceremony.


To be fair, maybe God hated the sight of blood? I know I get woozy when ever I see blood. Maybe he is the same?

Why would he specifically create a biological function he hated though? Was it completely necessary? Being the perfect and all powerful being he is, could he not find a work "work around"?

Wait, blood didn't exist until he created it.

He intentionally created something he didn't like only to condemn it?

Who wrote this crap?
edit on 4-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


As I stated before its a matter of physical purity in his presence and in regards to his sacrifices and your being prepared for specific rituals. Simple as that.

Cleanliness and spiritual cleanliness are both aspects of rituals at the time and being clean in both manners was the way that was required at the time.


Sorry that makes no sense? Why would god create a biological function that he hates and condemns?

I know "menstruating" was a punishment for original sin. So why do women still menstruate even after Jesus "erased" original sin?


Where does God say he hates menstruation? And child birth as a whole is the price of the original sin. God says its unclean to come into his temple while you are bleeding out your crotch.

keep in mind men who expelled semen or ANYONE that expelled ANY bodily fluid were also unclean and had to go through the EXACT same steps.

Is anyone remembering that little fact? Or why not look through he ENTIRE book and see just how many things make one unclean....you are all focusing on one very specific aspect in a narrow minded manner that the next few verses after show its not some exclusive to women hate thing.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


And unfortunately in this country the people who have the most money to buy the vote are the ones who get to write the rules.

I believe this is where much of the outrage over Mr. Cathy comes from - he is an example of a man who has built an empire around a very closed-minded and exclusionary set of principles, and is using his success to lobby for legal changes that would make that system the word of law. Most people don't have the luxury of that kind of money to get their personal beliefs onto a ballot or into a proposed bill. (And then there are people like me who recognize that it is morally reprehensible to attempt to purchase legislation that limits the lives of others for no good reason other than because it is my opinion, because I understand that my opinion should not be foisted upon anyone). We are not seeing an accurate representation of people's views because the people with the money are the ones who are getting their views represented, as well as swaying those people who just want to "go along with the crowd", as well as patiently brainwashing the weak willed through hell-fire and damnation scenarios. That should be obvious to anyone.

Getting back to segregation, if that went to the popular vote, do you think it would still exist today if the "majority" (i.e. those who have the purchasing power to make their opinion the dominant one) had a say about it? I would argue that it would.

Thus we come full circle. Biblical laws and religious opinions are being allowed to determine legislation. I am so thankful that someone stood up for me as a woman once upon a time or I'd still be considered property and sitting in a red tent one week out of every month. I feel an obligation to return that favor.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by otherpotato
 



well said. EXACTLY! someones opinions and subjective believe system AGAIN (usually in regards to the bible) is denying the civil rights of a group of people on that land.

we have seen this before in our history.


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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

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?

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)[/]


The Old Testament is the Old COVENANT. (Testament means covenant). The law (first covenant) was fulfilled in Christ. We are under the new covenant, the covenant of grace. The OT is still significant for history and prophecy. Jesus also preached holiness and repentance.


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



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by otherpotato
Biblical laws and religious opinions are being allowed to determine legislation.


Money and personal opinions are. This was a nation founded on Christian principles circa 1776 and Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

Statistically speaking its the people in power with conservative christian (and perhaps other) beliefs interpreted as banning same sex marriage = good.

Its hard to blame the Bible for peoples actions.

Jesus was pretty open and made things pretty clear, Spread his word and live your life how he wants you too OR NOT! he gives you the choice to do whatever you want.

No where in there does he speak of exerting beliefs on people or blocking actions with your beliefs. People interpret it as they wish and many are willing to wield it (and anything else they can) as a weapon of power over the masses or whoever.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


I however was commanded to preach the gospel. I was pointing out that Jesus said 2000 years ago that most would reject what you call "Sunday School" teaching. So when you make the comment that most people don't agree with it, that's just confirming Christ's prophecy.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


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.

What? I'm trying to follow along here, but these two statements confuse me.

There is "no issue on Earth that everyone believes"? Pretty sure everyone believes in gravity, sunshine, night, the moon, the stars, water, fire, soil, seasons....everyone believes women give birth and men do not; that children take a long time to grow to adulthood, that a Republic is not a Democracy....

And what would most people reject that the member ripped off from Jesus and articulated but not for the first time?




Those aren't "issues" Wild.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Dennislp3
 


The "New" Testament is still pretty "Old." Morality and societal norms evolve as society evolves, which is why many of the old rules were ditched. What I'm saying is that, just as the laws evolved concerning women who ride the crimson highway, there is a more relevant societal and moral standard that should be applied to fit with the societal norms of today. Some societal norms and moral codes stand the test of time, while others do not and need to be reframed. I thought the word of god was supposed to be a "living" word? Then why are people stuck in the world of 2000 years ago? What possible good reason can there be for homosexuality to be immoral in this day we live in? If you responded on this point before I'm sorry (it's a long thread). I'm genuinely curious to understand what the basis is because my own moral code does not include it and I always try to understand things that intuitively don't make sense to me.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join