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: 19
15
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


So do you have an organ or piano in your church? Pews?




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I don't really understand this thread. How does it make sense to start asking why someone isn't banning various things because they stated a belief.

It's the most close minded topic I've ever read. It suggests that a human is incapable of doing two things at once. It also suggests that only extremes are acceptable. There isn't an issue in the world with taking issue with homosexuality, but at the same time, treating homosexuals fairly. As far as I am ware, there is no history of them being treated unfairly in chicfila.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by timidobserver
I don't really understand this thread. How does it make sense to start asking why someone isn't banning various things because they stated a belief.



its not just about dan cathie stating a belief. we all state beliefs right? so what makes this different? there lies the issue. if u can think a bit further more critically than welcome to the thread.




Originally posted by timidobserver
It's the most close minded topic I've ever read.


well okay but not on ATS if thats for sure. ive been here since 2002 around the beginning of ATS longer than most everyone on ATS. it's not even close. ive seen some really close minded posts here and off of ATS. this is very lax compared to what ive seen rocking the cyber joint.





Originally posted by timidobserver
It suggests that a human is incapable of doing two things at once. It also suggests that only extremes are acceptable. There isn't an issue in the world with taking issue with homosexuality, but at the same time, treating homosexuals fairly. As far as I am ware, there is no history of them being treated unfairly in chicfila.


seems like you are just responding from a once over read of the title but thats about it. i once did that with the band Color Me BaDD.

edit on 6-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

It is against nature for a man or woman to want to look like the other.


What does that even mean?


Originally posted by truejew

No. Trousers are men's clothes.


LOL, you have to be kidding me.

Is there a Biblical reference for this? Be sure to only reference the NT, as we are not bound by OT law.

Jesus wore something akin to a skirt, for crying out loud. Clothes are a product of their time, just fashion, there are no clothes inherently male or female.
edit on 6-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


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


I would say you are partially aware, not fully. Legalism is attempting to look holy outward without having inward holiness. It is more concerned with what other people think of them.

Holiness is inward holiness that will show itself through outward holiness. A person with inward holiness does not want to dress in sinful clothes. They want to be properly covered and not cross dressing.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Where is the verse condemning women wearing pants?


Where is your verse that says cross dressing women have inward holiness?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 

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.

Again, I'm glad to contribute.

I'm hoping you can point me to the posts you mention as I'd like to review them, and the thread has become rather...lengthy? Thanks in advance if so, or if you can at least reference the points made.

As far as the original meanings, they do seem to be fairly straightforward in the hebrew of Leviticus, with the greek in the NT being a bit more subjective and open to interpretation. Without more review, so far I haven't seen anything to make me doubt the prohibition.

My thoughts on why the topic wasn't broached by Jesus are a bit different - according to Leviticus et. al., it was an abomination and commonly accepted as such, with no updates needed - hence no need to be addressed (much like his lack of any teaching regarding the Sabbath...it was a matter of course, so no need to discuss - hence, for the first few centuries, christians continued to observe the Sabbath until Rome weighed in the matter).

Anyhow, I'd like to once again reiterate that there's nothing inherent to homosexuality that somehow elevates it beyond sins regularly committed by those claiming christianity and so forth, so I definitely feel that THIS being such a big matter while christians so gladly gloss over or willingly participate in other problematic matters in such large part...makes little to no sense whatsoever.

Have a great day and stay safe out there.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


I never affirmed cross-dressing women have inward holiness. You however affirmed, and stated it was because of scriptural support, that women cannot wear pants. You made the truth claim therefore it's your burden of proof to show that it's a true statement. Don't straw man me. My truth claim was that pants did not exist 2000 years ago and in fact the inner garments of men resembled to-the-knee robes women wear to bed nowadays.

Where is this scripture you claim exists that forbids women to wear pants? Legalism also entails following laws or rules and thinking they make you righteous. Or following laws not applicable or laws and traditions of the denomination that are not commands from scripture. (Traditions of the elders/Mark 7)


edit on 6-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Legalism also entails following laws or rules and thinking they make you righteous. Or following laws not applicable or laws and traditions of the denomination that are not commands from scripture. (Traditions of the elders/Mark 7)


edit on 6-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


There is a difference between legalism and having inward holiness that shows on the outside.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Legalism also entails following laws or rules and thinking they make you righteous. Or following laws not applicable or laws and traditions of the denomination that are not commands from scripture. (Traditions of the elders/Mark 7)


edit on 6-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


There is a difference between legalism and having inward holiness that shows on the outside.


True. But putting tradition on par with scripture is strictly forbidden by Christ. Mocked even in Mark 7. Care to show the systematic theology dealing with women not allowed to wear pants as new covenant Christians under grace? Or will you admit that's denominational tradition?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Only in America could fast-food, sexuality and religion be blurred and twisted into an "issue" like this.It's farcical. There's a Will Ferell movie to be made out of this tomfoolery.

Imagine if it came to light that Chick Fil A were serving up GAY chicken, from big gay chicken farms. What then America?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by blah yada
Only in America could fast-food, sexuality and religion be blurred and twisted into an "issue" like this.It's farcical. There's a Will Ferell movie to be made out of this tomfoolery.

Imagine if it came to light that Chick Fil A were serving up GAY chicken, from big gay chicken farms. What then America?


Big gay chicken served by menstruating women in TROUSERS....scary huh!



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I have not said anything about denominational traditions.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I have not said anything about denominational traditions.


Saying women cannot wear pants is a denominational tradition of the elders. You're making fashion doctrine. Same thing the Pharisees did with their traditions in Mark 7. Go take a peek at to what Jesus says about that.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Saying women cannot wear pants is a denominational tradition of the elders.


What denomination? I teach that denominations are corrupt.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You're making fashion doctrine. Same thing the Pharisees did with their traditions in Mark 7. Go take a peek at to what Jesus says about that.


I am teaching that true inward holiness shows itself outwardly. I am not teaching that outward holiness makes a person holy on the inside.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Apostolic/ Oneness denomination.

And no you are trying to make fashion a commandment, putting it on par with scripture. That is cut and dry legalism. And once you begin it gets absurd. What about T-shirts? Can women wear T-shirts? Those were invented around WW1 for men in the military. They saw the European soldiers with them and loved them for their practicalities. Can women wear T-shirts?

Don't you see what traditionalism leaves you with? The principles of Christianity are timeless, the methods should be culturally relevant. Women wearing pants is merely fashion, nothing more, nothing less. Now fashion that is revealing is one thing, that would fall under modest dress, but to force women to wear skirts and dresses is nothing more than denominational tradition.


edit on 6-8-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Apostolic/ Oneness denomination.


That is not a denomination.

I told you earlier that you would not be able to understand true holiness due to you not having the Spirit of God dwelling in your temple. So, I am not surprised.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Apostolic/ Oneness denomination.


That is not a denomination.

I told you earlier that you would not be able to understand true holiness due to you not having the Spirit of God dwelling in your temple. So, I am not surprised.


You're teaching contrary to 1 Corinthians 2:13. Doesn't that bother you? And Oneness Pentecostalism/Apostolic is a denomination of Christianity. And furthermore, I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a secondary experience after conversion. I said it earlier and I guess you were not paying attention. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit comes at conversion, the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes some time later. Example would be when Christ breathed on the apostles after He resurrected and said "receive ye the Holy Spirit", then also told them to tarry until they were "endued with power from on high", which happened 10 days later at the feast of Pentecost.

A person cannot come to faith or be under conviction without the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit. You didn't answer my questions, are women allowed to wear t-shirts? Those were originally mens clothes, military attire at that, that nowadays both men and women wear. Can women wear t-shirts and not sin?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
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)


please expand on your statement... you must know them all and be a theologian too?

or could it be that you are just a follower of a different sort and repeating the same crapola that others like to say because they think it makes them look cool amongst their peers and online where they don't even know their peers in person...

I choose to be a follower of free will and free thought... but you, you sound like your peers.

we all grow up and find ourselves eventually... Godspeed



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

You're teaching contrary to 1 Corinthians 2:13. Doesn't that bother you?


It would if I was, but I'm not.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And Oneness Pentecostalism/Apostolic is a denomination of Christianity.


Nope. It is all of true Christianity.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You didn't answer my questions, are women allowed to wear t-shirts? Those were originally mens clothes, military attire at that, that nowadays both men and women wear. Can women wear t-shirts and not sin?


No one who has Inward holiness wants to wear short sleeve t-shirts.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


No one who has Inward holiness wants to wear short sleeve t-shirts.

Okay, I was going to stay out of this silly wardrobe debate, but truejew, you seem to have some sort of bizarre chip on your shoulder; your username is out of sync with what you are posting, and you are not making sense.

Sorry, but it's kind of cluttering up the thread...and completely derailed it as well...

Even Jesus said things to the point of not worrying about what you wear, just don't be all blinged out; I'm not a "Christian", I participate on this forum to learn how others think and why they behave the way they do, and what they believe....
but some of your posts are really out there.

Would you be so kind as to give us some background and personal disclosure, so that those of us who aren't just trolling for kicks will be able to determine our alignment with respect to yours?

I can't tell if you're Amish, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or what, but your posts certainly do NOT reflect any identifiable form of thought. Are you just a self-proclaimed knower? I mean that with no disrespect; in fact, I would be happy with that title myself, with the caveat that I know I DON'T know a LOT. What I do know, I know I know. Ya know?


We wear clothing because we lack fur. Why we lack fur, I don't know....but that's another topic. We remove layers of clothing in the damp heat, and add layers in the desert barrenness or the cold. We HAVE to wear clothes (those of us not living in a perfect climate), so naturally it will be a reflection of some kind as to what we choose to wear.

But if you are walking around judging people's holiness or indwelling spirituality by what they are or are not wearing, that is a twisted way to assess others. Talk about judging a book by its cover!






edit on 7-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join