Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

reply to post by TsukiLunar

How "old-fashioned" are we talking? Ye old English? Grunting and cave art?

Well, those are all fine....
my point is that I don't see any need for "debating terms" like: ad hominem, red herring, straw man, reification fallacy, and all the other buzz-words that pseudo-intellectuals use to "dis" people's points of view.

"Ye old English" (the Ye is actually a mistake....the "letter" that the people used in those days was a symbol for "th" that just looks like a "Y" to modern people) is fine.

Hast thou any further commentary or, prithee, points to make, good sir?

reply to post by krossfyter


It appears that you can not connect Christians to the hate that your anti-Christ, Christianphobic, hate group is saying that we are connected to.

This thread does nothing but show your ignorance of the Christian faith.

reply to post by truejew

It appears that you can not connect Christians to the hate that your anti-Christ, Christianphobic, hate group is saying that we are connected to.

This thread does nothing but show your ignorance of the Christian faith.

Hi. Can you please explain what you are talking about?? You mentioned that the "Christians" who believe in the Trinity are not really "Christians", right?

It appears that he cannot connect whom to what???

(I'm not a member of the organized or independent "Christian" faith; I just believe in the Golden Rule)....

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by krossfyter

 

It appears that you can not connect Christians to the hate that your anti-Christ, Christianphobic, hate group is saying that we are connected to.

This thread does nothing but show your ignorance of the Christian faith.

LOL

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by truejew

 

Hi. Can you please explain what you are talking about?? You mentioned that the "Christians" who believe in the Trinity are not really "Christians", right?

Correct. Before around 200AD, the Church taught that God was the Holy One. It was around 200AD that the trinities of the mystery babylon religion began to be mixed with Christianity. This new religion became known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Originally posted by wildtimes

It appears that he cannot connect whom to what???

He has been unable to connect the true Church to any act of hate in the past 2,000 years. All he can do is connect the Roman Catholic Church and her daughters to acts of hate.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

So basically there are hundreds of years of edits from Popes that may not have been particularly scrupulous, as they viewed themselves as the words of God and at the time ruled, and owned practically all the cities and property and land and all the inhabitants were tied to them, including Kings. There were those that lacked scruples and there was corruption and overriding from unholy alliances of powerful dynasties and the likes and these may well have caused alterations that suited their purpose. Another factor is that in this Vatican based religion, each successive Pope cannot override the edicts of another Pope and all followers of this religion are supposed to follow the every word of these edits and edicts as writ from God.

Total and complete LIE. The Dead Sea Scrolls found between 1946 and 1956 have been dated between approximately 400 BC to 200 AD, depending on the fragment...that is 100 to 600 years prior to the Council of Nicae (326 AD) when the Roman Catholic church canonized both Old and New Testaments. Every OT fragment found at Qumran has lined up with the manuscripts and Masoretic texts used to create the OT portion of the KIng James Bible published in 1611.

Originally posted by WeirdFuture77
Chick-Fil-A does not support gay marriage. Basically this means Chick-Fil-A does not support the eventual demise of mankind. Gay couples cannot reproduce. If we support gay marriage then when are supporting an institution that cannot guarantee the survival of our species. Gays can't reproduce. Heterosexuals can. Why does nature have to be so bias?

Quite the opposite is true, actually. Over-population from people having too many children is far more of a threat to the human race than allowing gay marriage.

Your post is ridiculous anyway, because it's not like gays will have hetero sex instead if they aren't allowed to marry.

Originally posted by truejew

He has been unable to connect the true Church to any act of hate in the past 2,000 years. All he can do is connect the Roman Catholic Church and her daughters to acts of hate.

Obviously you're very defensive here and havent been paying attention to my posts. That's blinding you.
And, who said I was talking about "the true church"? I'm not talking about "the true church".What I am talking about is these chic fil hate homophobes who think they are acting christian but exhibiting nothing but hate towards homosexuals.
No ones talking about the "true church". Get off that ride.

Originally posted by dirkpotters

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

So basically there are hundreds of years of edits from Popes that may not have been particularly scrupulous, as they viewed themselves as the words of God and at the time ruled, and owned practically all the cities and property and land and all the inhabitants were tied to them, including Kings. There were those that lacked scruples and there was corruption and overriding from unholy alliances of powerful dynasties and the likes and these may well have caused alterations that suited their purpose. Another factor is that in this Vatican based religion, each successive Pope cannot override the edicts of another Pope and all followers of this religion are supposed to follow the every word of these edits and edicts as writ from God.

Total and complete LIE. The Dead Sea Scrolls found between 1946 and 1956 have been dated between approximately 400 BC to 200 AD, depending on the fragment...that is 100 to 600 years prior to the Council of Nicae (326 AD) when the Roman Catholic church canonized both Old and New Testaments. Every OT fragment found at Qumran has lined up with the manuscripts and Masoretic texts used to create the OT portion of the KIng James Bible published in 1611.

edit on 5-8-2012 by dirkpotters because: (no reason given)

Read ALL of the post I wrote in context. I was referring to Roman Catholicism based Christianity in general. I didn't mention either OT or NT.

However, there are plenty of very educated scholars and theologians that believe that there is plenty of lies in the writing and rewriting of the NT.

news.discovery.com...

Nearly half of the New Testament is a forgery, according to a provocative new book that charges the Apostle Paul authored only a fraction of the letters attributed to him and the Apostle Peter wrote nothing. Written by Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical Christian and now agnostic professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, the book claims to unveil "one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition": the use of deception to promote the truth. "The Bible not only contains untruths of accidental mistakes. It also contains what almost anyone today would call lies," Ehrman writes in "Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are." NEWS: God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible -- Almost According to the biblical scholar, at least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries, while only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were probably written by him.

If you believe every word of the Christian bible as truth, then you are a rarity, even the scholars of Christianity do not

livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com...

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the “Paul” of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as “the word of truth” (1:13); he indicates that the “truth is in Jesus”; he tells his readers to “speak the truth” to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to “fasten the belt of truth around your waist” (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul. Let’s not sugar coat this. The holy book approved by the church for the entire history of the church was written by a liar encouraging truthfulness. It’s a lie. A bald faced lie. Written by a liar.

www.vatileaks.com...

Rev. D. H. Stanton, in The Journal of Theological Studies said: ‘The conclusion with which we are confronted is that the Gospel of Peter once held a place of honour comparable to that assigned to the four Gospels, perhaps even higher than some of them’. This conclusion is supported by a reference of Justin Martyr (circa 160) to the Gospel then called Petra (Peter, today) but there is evidence in the Secret Vatican Archives that the writings attributed to Justin Martyr were written in the Fifth Century and retrospectively applied to him.¹ Serapion of Antioch (c. 205) records that ‘an odd writing called Petra’ was in presbyterial use during his time but later, according to Eusebius (d. 339) it was ‘withheld’ because ‘it contained some heresy’. That ‘heresy’ was the fact that Apollo was the god mentioned in that Gospel, not Jesus Christ, and the latter’s name was written over Apollo’s name in more modern times.

reply to post by dirkpotters


Furthermore, presumably you wouldn't be so naive as to deny such things as Papal Edicts and their influence on the evolution of Christianity, which was the point I made in the original post that followers of Christianity throughout the ages were mostly affiliated to the Roman Catholic Church which states Popes as being infallible (despite being flawed humans known for corruption) and their edicts followed and unchallenged from the commencement of their 'religion'. Most of those followers aren't even aware of this fact, let alone the actual edicts and bulls that tell them the thing they are supposed to believe.

www.vatileaks.com...

To cover-up the false nature of the Christian texts, an extraordinary decision is found in the records of the First Council of Constantinople of 381-3, convened by Roman Emperor Theodosius (d. 395). What was decided at that assembly presents an historical fact outlining an extraordinary episode in New Testament history that is little-known today, and involved Pope Damasus, who was in attendance. He was a man so stained with impiety and so notorious with women that he was called the Tickler of Matron’s Ears.¹ When he found that the Roman people would not walk before him in processions, he had them beaten, and many were killed. He was charged with adultery in a Civil Court, and only the intervention of his friend, the Emperor, averted the scandal of a trial. He returned to the Church, and in a candid personal confession frankly admitted that the Gospel manuscripts of his day were so ‘full of errors and dubious passages’² that copies coming from scriptoriums were different and conflicting. To prevent the fabricated writings being seen by the wrong eyes, Pope Damasus came up with a solution that was brilliant in its simplicity … he banned the Bible. Origin of ‘heresy’ When the basic New Testament canon started to develop towards the end of the Fourth Century (generally) the laity was strictly ‘forbidden to read the word of God, or to exercise their judgment in order to understand it’.³ Damasus recorded that ‘bad use of difficult passages by the simple and poor gives rise to hear-say’ and the general populace was denied access to the compilations. The word ‘hear-say’ developed into ‘heresy’ and people who opposed Church opinions were subsequently called ‘heretics’.4 It was with a resolution of that council that the ban was officially established but some members of the priesthood had trouble understanding the new terminology. The unreliability of their explanations of heretics and heresies is illustrated in the case of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (d. 403) who mistook the Pythagorean Sacred Tetrad (the number 4), for a heretic leader. After he suppressed the Bible, Damasus created an array of formidable penances and additional anathemas ‘designed to keep the curious at bay’5, the chief tendency of the priesthood was to keep the Bible away from people and substitute Church authority as the rule of life and belief. Owning a Bible was a criminal offence In 860, Pope Nicholas I, sitting high on a throne built specially for the occasion in the town square, pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the Bible, and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree). In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban, and in 1198, Pope Innocent III declared that anybody caught reading the Bible would be stoned to death by ‘soldiers of the Church military’ (Diderot’s Encyclopedia, 1759). In 1229, the Council of Toulouse, ‘to be spoken of with detestation’, passed another Decree ‘that strictly prohibits laics from having in their possession either the Old or New Testaments; or from translating them into the vulgar tongue’. By the 14th Century, possession of a Bible by the laity was a criminal offence and punishable by whipping, confiscation of real and personal property, and burning at the stake. With the fabricated Christian texts safely hidden from public scrutiny by a series of Decrees, popes endorsed the public suppression of the Bible for twelve hundred and thirty years, right up until after the Reformation and the printing of the King James Bible in 1611. ¹Lives of the Popes, Mann, c. 1905 ²The Library of the Fathers, Damasus, Oxford, 1833-45 ³The Library of the Fathers, Damasus, Oxford, 1833-45 4The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917 5Early Theological Writings, G. W. F. Hegal

reply to post by wildtimes


I just noticed my reply to you somehow became a reply to myself...so I appear to be debating with myself (suppose that's not the first time). At any rate, just to confirm my response to your question, in case you didn't see it (wouldn't want an incomplete thought hanging out there):

It appears I was wrong - it is actually false attribution, or more specifically fallacy of quoting out of context. (Equivocation deals with meaning of words...duh). There are probably others that could also apply but that's the most obvious. I haven't dug into that level of detail in my arguments in about 15 years! (Damn I'm old). Generally I find citing the particular fallacy is only useful if there is any disagreement that the logic is sound for the argument. Otherwise you just end up sounding pedantic.

I thought it was also fitting to mention that after the time spent on this thread I now find myself with honor of being one of those damned "menstruating women". How's that for a fitting conclusion? Think I'll go drop by my local church.

Originally posted by krossfyter

What I am talking about is these chic fil hate homophobes who think they are acting christian but exhibiting nothing but hate towards homosexuals.
No ones talking about the "true church". Get off that ride.

edit on 5-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

The true Church stands with Chick-fil-A on marriage and the opening post is attempting, but failing, to use the Bible against that. Therefore this thread includes the true Church.

Here's something for the thread.

www.vatileaks.com...

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘seminary’ as originating from ‘semen-ary, a place of vice’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, p. 1131). In ancient times seminaries were male Church brothels where bishops and priests met to ‘exchange semen’ in homosexual activities in a ‘pull-pit’ (‘pulpit today’; Diderot’s Encyclopèdie, 1759). In the 1600s, the term ‘semen-arians’ was applied to the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola (1533) and his followers, who were engaged in strange and mutual male-to-male sexual activities (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685; also; Diderot’s Encyclopèdie, 1759). Knowledge of the existence of male priesthood brothels in Christian tradition is ‘pregnant with consequences’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, p. 1131) and is rarely mentioned by Church historians today. Nor is it mentioned that there is an old Christian tradition that priests were ‘anointed with semen so that they became ‘holy’, that is, separated to the God’s service’ (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, John M. Allegro, Revised Abacus edition, 1973, pp. 82-3). Fearing an abjuration of Christianity’s past, the Vatican bitterly condemned the learned John Allegro for making this damaging information publicly available, and overlooked his comments on the origin of the biblical grouping called the Seminites. In more modern times, the term ‘seminary’ was sanitized and promoted as a private place of religious education, particularly in Catholicism, but as the record shows, and to this very day, ‘seminaries’ are still Christian places of raging male homosexual activities.

www.greatsite.com...

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 *Apocrypha* Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

Apocrypha

The term apocrypha is used with various meanings, including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious"

The word is originally Greek (ἀπόκρυφα) and means "those hidden away". Specifically, ἀπόκρυφα is the neuter plural of ἀπόκρυφος, an adjective related to the verb ἀποκρύπτω [infinitive: ἀποκρύπτειν] (apocriptein), "to hide something away."

This isn't nice but it is how it was in Ancient Greece

en.wikipedia.org...

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[5] This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.
The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. A boy was considered a "boy" until he was able to grow a full beard. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his eromenos, whose reward for him lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.

The roots of Greek pederasty lie in the tribal past of Greece, before the rise of the city-state as a unit of political organization. These tribal communities were organized according to age groups. When it came time for a boy to embrace the age group of the adult and to "become a man," he would leave the tribe in the company of an older man for a period of time that constituted a rite of passage. This older man would educate the youth in the ways of Greek life and the responsibilities of adulthood.

''Father'', ''son'' and ''holy spirit'' indeed

www.holy-catholic.org...

“Trinity” imported from Hindu and Greek Ideologies The concept of the Trinity was first written about by Tertullian of Carthage ((140-230 A.D.) a Roman Montanist heretic and the son of a Roman Centurion) at the end of the second century, his ideas being taken from Greek and Hindu ideologies, but was not formally adopted into Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. which was overseen by Emperor Constantine I. Like Hindus have the “Trinity” dogma (Brahma, Ishwara and Devendra), the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. incorporated into their Religion the dogma of Trinity by joining separate personalities of their choice, viz., God, Holy Ghost and Jesus. As mentioned before Greek Ideology too has played a role in it. The concept of the Holy Ghost to be the part of a Trinity was completely unknown to Jesus and was never advocated by him. Top of Page

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by krossfyter

What I am talking about is these chic fil hate homophobes who think they are acting christian but exhibiting nothing but hate towards homosexuals.
No ones talking about the "true church". Get off that ride.

edit on 5-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

The true Church stands with Chick-fil-A on marriage and the opening post is attempting, but failing, to use the Bible against that. Therefore this thread includes the true Church.

maybe than take up that true church angle with the OP? my agenda is with exposing/exploring suppose christian, chicken biscuit lovers and their hypocrisy.

i started this thread with questioning legalism and it being used to control others outside of the church and who have different belief systems/subjective ways of living and viewing the world.


i strongly believe same sex marriage rights is a civil rights issue. thats my agenda if anything.

reply to post by otherpotato

I thought it was also fitting to mention that after the time spent on this thread I now find myself with honor of being one of those damned "menstruating women". How's that for a fitting conclusion? Think I'll go drop by my local church.

Actually, the most fitting conclusion is that eventually you outgrow that! YAY!! Too bad not everyone outgrows religious dogma.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth



wow thats new to me. never thought about the term/place "seminary" like that.

The letter from St Jerome who was asked to rewrite the New Testament from Greek in A.D. 383

vulgate.org...

St. Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament Addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383.

You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The labour is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how can I dare to change the language of the world in its hoary old age, and carry it back to the early days of its infancy? Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language, and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein? Now there are two consoling reflections which enable me to bear the odium—in the first place, the command is given by you who are the supreme bishop; and secondly, even on the showing of those who revile us, readings at variance with the early copies cannot be right. For if we are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake? I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labours of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false. I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while I have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are.

reply to post by dirkpotters


Even Early Christianity disputed the authenticity of the NT.

en.wikipedia.org...

Antilegomena, a direct transliteration from the Greek αντιλεγόμενα, refers to written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed.[1] Eusebius in his Church History written c. 325 used the term for those Christian scriptures that were "disputed" or literally those works which were "spoken against" in Early Christianity, before the closure of the New Testament canon. This group is distinct from the notha ("spurious" or "rejected writings") and the Homologoumena ("accepted writings" such as the Canonical gospels). These Antilegomena or "disputed writings" were widely read in the Early Church and included the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache.

If the Vulgate was ever written in the first place, the bible was banned to people until the 14th century, there are reports that it was written as recently as then

www.vatileaks.com...

Stunning new evidence reveals that the Vatican’s famed Latin Vulgate Bible did not originate with St. Jerome some 1600 years ago, as claimed by the Holy See, but was written by popes just three centuries ago. Jerome’s original Latin Vulgate Bible does not exist! This is one of the Vatican’s great secrets, and it reveals that the Catholic Bible is nothing more than a human fabrication. The ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ supports this knowledge, stating that popes manufactured into existence a ‘pretended Vulgate’, and retrospectively applied it Jerome to create the impression that it had a very early origin. Jerome’s original Latin Vulgate Bible is literary assumption, and the full story of how the Vatican created a fake Vulgate Bible is revealed in Tony Bushby’s revelatory new book, ‘Christ on Trial’.

www.holy-catholic.org...

The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18).

Originally posted by krossfyter
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

wow thats new to me. never thought about the term/place "seminary" like that.

''Pull-Pit'' it's practically all LITERAL and sexual, disguised as religion.

reply to post by humphreysjim


I don't think it's ok to have predatory deviants with openly perverted sexual tendencies in our society expressing their preference in the bedroom to the general public. They need to keep it in the bedroom and the general public needs to keep our children away from gays probing hands...

a private business can refuse service to whomever they wish... it is at the discretion of the proprietor.

The man (owner) can do whatever he wants to do, that is what the majority of the whining liberal public seems to have forgot... you didn't build that business (as Obama has said) it is not yours or even the a public institution, it is a private establishment.