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: 18
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 

thnx for your response. im posing these questions to so called christians because they seem to be using one part of LEGALISM and not the other parts of LEGALISM.

Sure thing, friend. I'll give this a yes and a no, though. While they generally tend to ignore parts of their own scriptures in general, and misapply proper handling as regards this issue, homosexuality does actually come up as an ongoing prohibition in the new testament (perhaps only in the epistles and apocalyptic books, granted, and not directly addressed by Christ in the gospels).


Christians do still use the old testament do they not? If they didnt it wouldnt be in the christian bible would it not? Talking to Jews is a different ball game. They havent been condemning homosexuals with this whole chil fil a issue.

Yes and no as to christians using the old testament, as well. There is still much very good applicable knowledge, background, and basis in the old testament, but as regards the mosaic law itself, no, christians are not subject to the greatest part of it (as it was the covenant between the jews accepting their relationship with god at Sinai as his chosen people, and prophesied to be superceded by a new covenant in the book of Jeremiah - one focusing primarily on the spirit of the law and the hearts of men, as compared to the letter of the law and ceremonial/physical acts of the flesh).

Removing the jewish roots of the christian faith from the bible would be - IMHO, anyway - sheer lunacy due to the fact that it's the entire bedrock of christianity. All too many christians are entirely too ignorant of entirely too much of it, though - to their own detriment.

As I just implied on a post on another thread, however, "christians" on the whole are often such mainly only in name, as compared to reality. We'd likely not be having this discussion in the first place if they observed all the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

Take care.




edit on 8/5/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


The point is that pants are men's clothes.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Leave the Pharisees to their washing of pots brother.


Actually, the Pharisees were concerned with wearing clothes that made them look higher up in society. That is not what we do. Our standards are based on inward holiness. A woman who is holy inside does not want to wear men's clothes or go around outside half naked.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Who said anything about "half naked"? And what I was referring to was how the Pharisees elevated traditionalism to the level of scripture. There is no commandment for women's dress other than to be modest, and that is an ambiguous term. Making people follow a dress code is not holiness, that's LEGALISM. Putting church tradition of the elders on par with scripture is Phariseeism, read Mark 7.

There will be a ton of women in Hell who never wore pants. Jesus said to NOT judge appearances but to make righteous judgments. That means judge a person's heart, not the externals. There is no verse that says women are commanded not to wear pants, that is a "tradition of the elders".



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


The point is that pants are men's clothes.


Pants are also women's clothes. 2000 years ago no one wore pants.

Do you have an organ/piano or pews in your church? Air conditioning or a furnace for heat? People in first century gatherings stood for service, and the organ/piano was added to services to try and liven them up to boost attendances because it worked great in pubs.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Those who do not have the Holy Spirit baptism have trouble learning spiritual teachings.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
Sure thing, friend. I'll give this a yes and a no, though. While they generally tend to ignore parts of their own scriptures in general, and misapply proper handling as regards this issue, homosexuality does actually come up as an ongoing prohibition in the new testament (perhaps only in the epistles and apocalyptic books, granted, and not directly addressed by Christ in the gospels).


thnx for ur response. i hear ya and agree. i believe some posts back this with the term "homosexuality" was debated and ive come to the conclusion that "homosexuality" the term and concept was not used in the original text. its a 19th century manifestation. the OT and NT (in regards to gays as the fundamental and chic fil hate christians use them) seem to be grossly out of context. as well different laws then for a different culture and time. which i guess why Jesus never touched the topic. wasn't a big deal to him. thnx again for your response.



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



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Pants are also women's clothes.


No, men's clothes only.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

2000 years ago no one wore pants.


Pants were worn by Jewish priests back in the days of the OT. Long before 2000 years ago. Priests were men only.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Those who do not have the Holy Spirit baptism have trouble learning spiritual teachings.


No man can call Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3)

Those who call Christ their Lord and Savior could not come to that place without the regeneration and indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Now, this isn't about the baptism of fire, this is about women wearing pants.

What verse commands women not to wear pants? I don't care about the tradition of your elders if there is no scriptural support. You cannot legislate holiness, to do so is legalism. The same thing Christ mocked the Pharisees for in Mark 7.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Pants are also women's clothes.


No, men's clothes only.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

2000 years ago no one wore pants.


Pants were worn by Jewish priests back in the days of the OT. Long before 2000 years ago. Priests were men only.


Pants are also women's clothing, go to any store. The principles of Christianity never change, the methods should be culturally relevant. And why as a new covenant Gentile Christian do you care about Levitical law? What NT verse says Gentile Christian converts are bound by Levitical law?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


...this is about women wearing pants.


You will not understand the difference between the Pharisees and inward/outward holiness until you receive the Spirit of Christ.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


another little important factor is you seem to have forgotten exactly what I keep repeating and you so easily ignore... different adherents/blends of Christianity interpret the bible differently so lets determine which blend or flavor you are discussing first and readers will have a base to stand on.

And THAT is the problem!!! They "interpret the bible differently", because it's bunk. *sigh*
There is no blend or flavor that makes any sense. None.


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



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Who said anything about "half naked"?


I think he's talking about female believers wearing bikinis and such to public places like pools and beaches.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Pants are also women's clothing, go to any store.


I don't go to stores to find out what kind of clothes a Christian should wear. I let the Spirit teach me through Scripture.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

What NT verse says Gentile Christian converts are bound by Levitical law?


None. We are not bound by the law.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


it means you cannot have sexual intercourse with a woman while on her period. duh!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by Praetorius
Sure thing, friend. I'll give this a yes and a no, though. While they generally tend to ignore parts of their own scriptures in general, and misapply proper handling as regards this issue, homosexuality does actually come up as an ongoing prohibition in the new testament (perhaps only in the epistles and apocalyptic books, granted, and not directly addressed by Christ in the gospels).


thnx for ur response. i hear ya and agree. i believe some posts back this with the term "homosexuality" was debated and ive come to the conclusion that "homosexuality" the term and concept was not used in the original text. its a 19th century manifestation. the OT and NT (in regards to gays as the fundamental and chic fil hate christians use them) seem to be grossly out of context. as well different laws then for a different culture and time. which i guess why Jesus never touched the topic. wasn't a big deal to him. thnx again for your response.


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


Man lying with another man (sex), or woman lying with another woman (sex), is spoken of. That's what chasing after "strange flesh" means, ontop of having sex with fallen angels (who are all males). Marriage between a man and a woman is deemed a holy union, because the two compliment eachother as as the natural laws God created was intended for.

Jesus did address the topic in the OT, who do you think was standing there talking to Abraham when Abraham asked him to spare the city (Sodom) and got him to agree if only 5 righteous were found he would spare them? Yeah that was pre-human Jesus, otherwise known as Yahweh that Abraham was talking to the day Sodom an Gomorrah disappeared. This is why Jesus said of Capernaum that if Sodom had seen the works he had done they would have repented and remained to that day whereas Capernaum would not repent.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


...this is about women wearing pants.


You will not understand the difference between the Pharisees and inward/outward holiness until you receive the Spirit of Christ.


I'm fully aware of the difference between Holiness and Legalism. Holiness is a matter of the heart and Legalsim is outward and fleshly.

Where is the verse condemning women wearing pants? Or is it a tradition of he elders you are elevating to the level of scripture? And the Word of God already declares that "no man" can call Jesus their Lord without the Holy Spirit. There is a difference between the indwelling and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave the apostles the Holy Spirit when He breathed on them after His resurrection and they did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until 50 days later at Pentecost.

A person cannot come to saving faith in Christ and repent of their sins without the ministry and work of the holy Spirit in their life.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Pants are also women's clothing, go to any store.


I don't go to stores to find out what kind of clothes a Christian should wear. I let the Spirit teach me through Scripture.


Alright, share the scripture reference about women and pants. All you've said so far is traditionalism.



Originally posted by NOTurTypical

What NT verse says Gentile Christian converts are bound by Levitical law?


None. We are not bound by the law.


Then why did you bring up as an example what Levite priests were commanded to wear under first covenant Levitical law as if it pertained to non-Levite new covenant Gentile Christians under grace?
edit on 5-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by Praetorius
Sure thing, friend. I'll give this a yes and a no, though. While they generally tend to ignore parts of their own scriptures in general, and misapply proper handling as regards this issue, homosexuality does actually come up as an ongoing prohibition in the new testament (perhaps only in the epistles and apocalyptic books, granted, and not directly addressed by Christ in the gospels).


thnx for ur response. i hear ya and agree. i believe some posts back this with the term "homosexuality" was debated and ive come to the conclusion that "homosexuality" the term and concept was not used in the original text. its a 19th century manifestation. the OT and NT (in regards to gays as the fundamental and chic fil hate christians use them) seem to be grossly out of context. as well different laws then for a different culture and time. which i guess why Jesus never touched the topic. wasn't a big deal to him. thnx again for your response.


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


Man lying with another man (sex), or woman lying with another woman (sex), is spoken of. That's what chasing after "strange flesh" means, ontop of having sex with fallen angels (who are all males). Marriage between a man and a woman is deemed a holy union, because the two compliment eachother as as the natural laws God created was intended for.

Jesus did address the topic in the OT, who do you think was standing there talking to Abraham when Abraham asked him to spare the city (Sodom) and got him to agree if only 5 righteous were found he would spare them? Yeah that was pre-human Jesus, otherwise known as Yahweh that Abraham was talking to the day Sodom an Gomorrah disappeared. This is why Jesus said of Capernaum that if Sodom had seen the works he had done they would have repented and remained to that day whereas Capernaum would not repent.



i believe if you read the posts this is already covered. we went thru this.
i came to the conclusion that its based on interpretations.

my agenda is not that christ condemns or condones homosexuality. im making the point that Christ had more important issues to deal with which he did and which make up the bulk of his teachings.

regardless there is many a debate on this issue of Jesus condemning homosexuality with different sides and intepretations (which i mentioned some in my previous posts). we can go round and round ad nauseum on this topic and not come to an agreement.

thus i came to the conclusion that its VAGUE and not talked about much for some reason.

thus i came to the conclusion that based on this who are christians to tell non christians or homosexuals what to do or not to do especially in regards to CIVIL RIGHTS (land laws not church laws).

hence, the essence of the OPs post from my view.




Jesus spent most of his ministry trying to reorient his audience to the spirit of the law, as they had become so wrapped up in its letter. The result was usually a stricter interpretation of the law. A man who just LOOKS at a woman is guilty of adultery. Divorce becomes out of the picture. Jesus really didn’t spend a lot of time loosening laws. So yes, his silence on the matter is telling. As was already mentioned, he was silent on every other sin of sexual impurity. His concern was reorienting the hearts of his listeners first and foremost, with the hope that their actions would follow suit.

At the same time, we can probably say that homosexuality wouldn’t have been as central an issue as many others. When the adulterous woman is brought to Jesus, he doesn’t make a big deal out of her sin. He makes a bigger deal out of the sins of everyone who brought her to him (writing them in the sand). But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t acknowledge her behavior as disordered. He’s basically like “no biggy, just don’t do it anymore.”

He reacts much more strongly to legalism, pride, greed, and other issues which he sees as central.




a lot of homosexuals aren't christians. so why should they believe what christians believe? even homosexual christians belief different then anti homosexual christians. a dispute all the way around. interpretations abound. one side says the other is wrong the other side says the other side is wrong. round and round and round we go...

there is a seperation of church and state for a reason.

christians shouldn't use their laws on people who aren't christians especially when it comes to government. america is great because we don't have to live under others religious laws and belief systems in regards to laws. though there are different degrees to which this may be happening today in america. thats very taliban.



"I pointed those scriptures to a coworker of mine. He said he wasn’t a Christian. Those were rules for us, not him. I stopped arguing right then and there."


hence... and something i still maintain throughout this thread.... ssame sex marriage is a civil rights issue.
just like slavery, disegregation was a civil rights issue and woman rights is a civil rights issue. all of which christians have used their bible to control others as we see with the homosexuality issue today.



black Americans were denied justice, equality, and freedom on the basis of nothing more than racial bigotry by whites. Many of these whites sought to defend and justify their racism, their bigotry, and their institutional discrimination on the basis of their religious texts.


as far as sodom gomorrah in regards to homosexuality:

some people who read the scriptures believe that the destruction was due to greed and indifference toward the suffering. they believe it wasn't about homosexuality.
edit on 5-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Man, Legalism really burns me up. Mark 7 details how absurd it is and what Christ thinks and calls folks who elevate their traditions to the level of God's commandments.




top topics



 
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join