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: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24

...the problem with your OP is that you haven't rightly divided between Jewish and Christian text.


I don't think it matters who the passages are directed at. If menstruating women are unclean, they are unclean. I am not talking about laws, I am simply talking about the way God refers to menstruating women.

Why would anyone want to be near someone so clearly labelled unclean?

I understand the distinction in laws, which is why I have not really mentioned laws, but the fact remains God calls homosexual acts "abominations", and menstruating women "unclean", it matters not the race, religion, or nationality of the people involved, unclean is unclean.

Should the comments regarding putting to death homosexuals stand also, then?

"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Is it that we should accept the abomination part but not the putting to death part?
edit on 3-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by butcherguy

True Christians shouldn't have a problem rejecting Leviticus.



That would include the parts about homosexuality too, then.

Menstruation is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, by the way, in the same manner.

Correct, IMO.
Even though today's Bible was edited by patriarchal groups, there are still traces remaining to tell us that Jesus was not a sexist that would banish a woman from a group due to a natural human bodily function.
Nor would he tolerate the murder of a person due to their sexual choices.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



I am simply talking about the way God refers to menstruating women.

I won't doubt that you are speaking to God.

But if your reference is taken from religious writings, such as the Bible, I would say that you are reading words written by men. Words written to be used to assert control over the population, giving power to men over women.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by humphreysjim
 



I am simply talking about the way God refers to menstruating women.

I won't doubt that you are speaking to God.

But if your reference is taken from religious writings, such as the Bible, I would say that you are reading words written by men. Words written to be used to assert control over the population, giving power to men over women.



I am not actually claiming to be talking to God, just using the words of the Christian's own book, which is assumed by them to be God's word.

For the record, I am an atheist.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Awen24

...the problem with your OP is that you haven't rightly divided between Jewish and Christian text.


I don't think it matters who the passages are directed at. If menstruating women are unclean, they are unclean. I am not talking about laws, I am simply talking about the way God refers to menstruating women.




Exactly - so, God thinks that Jewish menstruating women are unclean, but Christian menstruating women are okey-dokey.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24
Thus, unless a law is reiterated in the New Testament (God's stance on homosexuality is; Israel's law regarding menstruating women is not), it no longer applies.



so what is God's stance on homosexuality in the new testament?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 


I would appreciate it if you took my name out of that post since i had nothing to do with it. Thank you.

No doubt!! And he did it twice!!

I would DEMAND that he correct it; he's making it look like you said it, when HE is the one who said it.
Mods??!!

(btw, your earlier post with the laws and the "modern group name" cracked me up. "Asshole children" in particular....heh heh heh...)

@PvtHudson, shame on you for putting your words into someone else's "quote box".
Why would you do that? Are you flustered? Or just not paying attention?

The OP has a good point; and so does TsukiLunar.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Exactly. Why would a Christian speak out against gays and not speak out against, say, a person who has lost their penis? They are both wrong in eyes of God.

The argument that they are "followers of Christ" just doesn't hold water when you consider they also are followers of God and that Jesus is just an Avatar of Him anyway.

Wait a minute... The Father... The Son.. The Holy Spirit...

Okay, I am going to go off on a ramble here...

Okay, so The Father is explicitly God, the holy spirit is explicitly God too(just the aspect of him that invades you?).. isn't it? And Jesus is an Avatar of God, but God as well? These three together also make up God, but are not him completely as a single entity without the other two...?

But wait, the NT and OT God act like completely different people. So is the God we see in OT The Father and the one we see in NT the Holy Spirit? Are they both?

Wait, I got it! God has a split personality and should not be listened to because he is clearly unstable.


edit on 3-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Jesus made absolutely no mention at all towards homosexuality, that's why we're always referred to passages within the Old Testament, but when other more absurd things are pointed out in the OT, we are told that only the NT counts (which says VERY little on the subject, and nothing from Jesus himself - such an important subject that Jesus mentions it never).

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





No doubt!! And he did it twice!!


He sure did do it twice. Once may be an accident, but twice... well it may still be an accident. I have asked him to remove my name from the other post and he has not done so. Thats suspicious.

I "alerted" the post and asked them to remove my name. I hope it gets done.

I am glad you enjoyed my other posts and I thank you for pointing out the other "mistake".



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


Cathy, religiously, is trying to prevent the rights of homosexuals to get married, and is actively campaigning it. He is cherry picking a very, specific sin out of the bible, instead of addressing any others.

Someone of his position, instead of spending 5 million on anti-gay groups, should be using the money to help support teen girls and give them stable homes instead of having abortions or having children out of wedlock.

He could be using that money to provide free counseling to couples so they don't get divorced.

He could be using that money to do good and prevent other sins, but instead he is using it for a campaign of discrimination.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



I am not actually claiming to be talking to God, just using the words of the Christian's own book, which is assumed by them to be God's word.

It seems that most Christians assume that the Bible is God's word.
Not all of them, though.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by humphreysjim
 



I am not actually claiming to be talking to God, just using the words of the Christian's own book, which is assumed by them to be God's word.

It seems that most Christians assume that the Bible is God's word.
Not all of them, though.


If the Bible is not God's word, can we really trust any of it?

Little is left of Christianity if the Bible is removed from the equation, and therefore any attack on the legitimacy of the Bible is an attack on the legitimacy of Christianity. The less we can be sure the Bible is factually correct, the less we can be sure Christianity itself is correct.

It's a slippery slope, and most are not willing to make the slide.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 
I for one do not trust it, so you are preaching to the choir in a way, although I am not atheist.

But I wouldn't say to toss the entire Bible as crap, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I tend to agree with Ten Commandments, whether written by men or handed down directly from God. The Golden Rule is worth living by too, but it is hardly the sole property of Judeo/Christian culture.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
They dont like interracial couples either...



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by humphreysjim
 
I for one do not trust it, so you are preaching to the choir in a way, although I am not atheist.

But I wouldn't say to toss the entire Bible as crap, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I tend to agree with Ten Commandments, whether written by men or handed down directly from God. The Golden Rule is worth living by too, but it is hardly the sole property of Judeo/Christian culture.



We don't need the Bible to tell us that some of the things in the Ten Commandments are generally good rules to live by, though. I think, had we have tossed out the entire Bible as crap a long time ago, we'd be in a much better place as a species today.

Of course, the other Bibles would need tossing out too, along with the rest of the religions and maybe we could move forward into a better, less divisive world. Nothing divides like religion.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
As Hitchens said, "Religion poisons everything".

Rather than promoting moral behaviour, it is clear to me that religion has slowed down moral progress at every single step, from women's rights, to racism, and homosexuality, and continues to do so today.
edit on 3-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Chick-Fil-A didn't ban anyone. Secondly, we have sanitary ways to deal with bodily fluids that people thousands of years ago did not enjoy.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Chick-Fil-A didn't ban anyone.


no one said they did.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Chick-Fil-A didn't ban anyone. Secondly, we have sanitary ways to deal with bodily fluids that people thousands of years ago did not enjoy.


Once again *sigh*, I did not say Chick-Fil-A banned anyone.

Women, even in Biblical times, had methods of stopping their menstrual "fluids" getting over chairs and such, and so were no more or less a hazard than they are today.

And if sanitation was the real issue, maybe God should have instructed the people on how to create a sanitary pad rather than the primitive and somewhat retarded notion of avoiding them like they had the plague *roll eyes*.

Agree?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join