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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
It's much more fun to bash the gays than to stop eating bacon, or sleep in a different room to your wife when she's on her period, of course.


It is refreshing to see Chick-Fil-A refusing to be bullied by the politically correct thought police.

Chick-Fil-A rooting for traditional, male/female marriage.


How dare they! Don't they know that gays are the new coloureds.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 





If we can not explain our own consciousness, I don't believe that we could explain one concept that dwells entirely (possibly) within our consciousness.


I really don't know how one would prove that another person is aware of their own awareness.

However one could make the argument that simply an individual being aware of their own awareness is, indeed, enough to prove to themselves that they are aware.

How I would prove other people are not biological robots without free will? I don't know. How I would prove how consciousness works? I don't know.

I am fine with that.
edit on 3-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


What do you mean "how so"? What's the point of postulating if they should ban menstruating women when they have no history of banning anyone? We all know why this thread was made, lets not play games.


Yes, lets not play games. Chik-fil-a hates gay people. Should it hate people who are menstruating? Should it hate women rights? Should it hate people who shave? Should it hate Harry Potter?

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


Chick-fil-A is a corporation, for one thing a corporation cannot "hate" anything, reification fallacy. Secondly, being against an issue doesn't involve "hate" in a collective sense. That would be as absurd as if I said "gay people hate Christian people". What is with this culture in today's society where if a person is against something it's "hate"?


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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yes, lets not play games. Chik-fil-a hates gay people.


By the same logic, because you support gay marriage, you must hate heterosexual people.

Just saying.





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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter
 


What do you mean "how so"? What's the point of postulating if they should ban menstruating women when they have no history of banning anyone? We all know why this thread was made, lets not play games.


they dont have to have a history of banning anyone for anything for the OP to have made the point in this thread.

the game that is actually still being played apparently is dodging the crux/point of the post.





I didn't dodge anything, I addressed the issue of menstruation in my initial post.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
But if each piece of the holy trinity is God, but they are not the full God until they are as One, then, then when they merge do they become Super God? Like out of a mecha anime?

This makes no sense, who wrote this crap?


Not when dealing with infinites. All three can be different yet infinite simultaneously.


Didnt see this post until now.
,
Okay, so they are all three the same and yet different at the same time? Yet, logically, that is clearly a contradiction. This fundamentally defies any understanding of the concept of the Judeo-Christian God.

Okay, so we cant understand him. So how can we believe in something we can not grasp the concept of? For instance:

A monoclantinca has four horns, but only two. Its body is mostly green, but the majority of it is yellow. It can turn invisible, but every other organism can see it. It is a mammal, but is cold blooded and lays eggs.

Do you believe this animal exists?
edit on 3-8-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


Again,.. it's not a contradiction when dealing with infinity..

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+ infinity = infinity
2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+ infinity = infinity
3+3+3+3+3+3+3+3+ infinity = infinity


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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
What is with this culture in today's society where if a person is against something it's "hate"?


Welcome to the brave new world of 'political correctness' where anyone who supports traditional institutions, such as male/female marriage, is attacked merciless by the thought police.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Chick-fil-A is a corporation, for one thing a corporation cannot "hate" anything, reification fallacy.

Okay, NuT, here we go again.....dinner time....
....

If "corporations" have been given the same rights as "people", they certainly can, and very obviously DO "hate" certain things. And it was the CEO, Mr Cathy, who made the statements and the donation to the cause that HE hates.

And why, o dear lord above, WHY do you insist on throwing these obscure "debating" terms in your posts? Does it seem to you it lends credence to your tenets?

The guy is a bigoted douche, in charge of a corporation, and he said and did those things. Reality fallacy.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Chick-fil-A is a corporation, for one thing a corporation cannot "hate" anything, reification fallacy.


My bad, I guess the Dan donating to anti-gay groups in the companies name was just a mistake on his part.




Secondly, being against an issue doesn't involve "hate" in a collective sense.


What does that statement even mean?



Secondly, being against an issue doesn't involve "hate" in a collective sense. That would be as absurd as if I said "gay people hate Christian people". What is with this culture in today's society where if a person is against something it's "hate"?


You seem to misunderstand the word "hate".


to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward;


I think donating to groups who want to deport gays is enough to qualify as "Passionate dislike".



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Yes, lets not play games. Chik-fil-a hates gay people.


By the same logic, because you support gay marriage, you must hate heterosexual people.

Just saying.





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


Show me how, logically, your statement follows. Then I will agree.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by humphreysjimDo you reject parts of Leviticus? Would you be happy, after reading and accepting Leviticus, to sit next to a menstruating woman who is unclean and disgusting? Do you think homosexuals should be put to death, or merely barred from marriage?
edit on 3-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)




^^^^ above is the question again. any christian care to respond?

To answer this plainly - my apologies for coming late to the game - my christian scriptures teach that it's god's place to judge, not ours, and that christians as regards their own actions and lifestyles are only bound by a very few strictures, and not the whole of mosaic law (as you can read in Acts regarding the dispute between Paul and the other apostles over doctrine).

Perhaps it might be more enlightening to pose this question to jews, since these quotes are all directly from their scriptures, to see how they currently apply them. I know (after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem), the laws regarding sacrifice were superceded to allow atoning prayer and worship in the synagogues, but I've never dug in to find any modifications or abrogations of the other points of law. Looking into current handling might be quite instructive, as I'm not familiar with recent cases of the orthodox jews stoning their children or any of the rest.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Again,.. it's not a contradiction when dealing infinity..


So God is just an abstract concept? A mathematical concept? What? That answers nothing!



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
What is with this culture in today's society where if a person is against something it's "hate"?


Welcome to the brave new world of 'political correctness' where anyone who supports traditional institutions, such as male/female marriage, is attacked merciless by the thought police.



"I have seen such great intolerance shown in the support of tolerance.". - Samuel Taylor Coleridge



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
My bad, I guess the Dan donating to anti-gay groups in the companies name was just a mistake on his part.


Would those 'anti'-gay groups be groups campaigning against gay marriage by any chance?


The horror. The inhumanity.


Yet Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
If every word of the bible was followed there would be no humanity, literally, either killed or weren't born in the first place. The confusion of hypocritical comments against everybody about everything would render it completely unworkable and would require rewriting just to get any sense from it, oh wait rewritten....ah the irony.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
My bad, I guess the Dan donating to anti-gay groups in the companies name was just a mistake on his part.


Would those 'anti'-gay groups be groups campaigning against gay marriage by any chance?


The horror. The inhumanity.


Yet Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote






A simple google search would reveal a lot of the questions you seem to have. He has donated to way more groups that are not just against gay-marriage.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Chick-fil-A is a corporation, for one thing a corporation cannot "hate" anything, reification fallacy.

Okay, NuT, here we go again.....dinner time....
....

If "corporations" have been given the same rights as "people", they certainly can, and very obviously DO "hate" certain things. And it was the CEO, Mr Cathy, who made the statements and the donation to the cause that HE hates.

And why, o dear lord above, WHY do you insist on throwing these obscure "debating" terms in your posts? Does it seem to you it lends credence to your tenets?

The guy is a bigoted douche, in charge of a corporation, and he said and did those things. Reality fallacy.


Bigoted douche? Really? I thought he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights... guess not. And secondly, Chick-Fil-A IS a corporation, it cannot feel anything. Hate, love, fear, remorse anything. To speak of it if it can or does is a reification fallacy. It's not a logical/rational point.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Again,.. it's not a contradiction when dealing infinity..


So God is just an abstract concept? A mathematical concept? What? That answers nothing!


I've never tripped up over the Trinity, perhaps because of my background in mathematics... it's possible to conceptualize unity in plurality.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by humphreysjimDo you reject parts of Leviticus? Would you be happy, after reading and accepting Leviticus, to sit next to a menstruating woman who is unclean and disgusting? Do you think homosexuals should be put to death, or merely barred from marriage?
edit on 3-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)




^^^^ above is the question again. any christian care to respond?

To answer this plainly - my apologies for coming late to the game - my christian scriptures teach that it's god's place to judge, not ours, and that christians as regards their own actions and lifestyles are only bound by a very few strictures, and not the whole of mosaic law (as you can read in Acts regarding the dispute between Paul and the other apostles over doctrine).

Perhaps it might be more enlightening to pose this question to jews, since these quotes are all directly from their scriptures, to see how they currently apply them. I know (after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem), the laws regarding sacrifice were superceded to allow atoning prayer and worship in the synagogues, but I've never dug in to find any modifications or abrogations of the other points of law. Looking into current handling might be quite instructive, as I'm not familiar with recent cases of the orthodox jews stoning their children or any of the rest.


I don't want to get into a huge religious debate here, but having studied Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca etc, I have to say, on the Christianity front, it isn't a purified rewriting of Judaic scriptures. Certainly there are aspects but at base level you have to study the Acts in the Vatican as these are the first Christian scriptures, there are thousands of these acts, they used to be accessible from the Vatican website, possibly still are. These are basically Papal edicts and 'edits' as they see fit, basically anything the Pope of the time from the first Peter scriptures to now chose to add as an act or edict, basically creating laws for people according to their will, often for political gain rather than theological purpose. Another factor of major importance in this is that Roman Catholicism was the ONLY Christianity for a very long time and current forms of Christianity are relatively recent.

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.

Al lot of people are unaware of the historical aspects that influences religions, and whilst there is often good moral grounding in some of the basics, it irks when people think God magically made the words appear. People, probably unfair, often unjust, selfish, flawed people with their own agendas wrote and influenced these Bibles and the path of these religions. To believe every word is to believe the word of many another humans.

ETA this isn't aimed particularly at you or a dig at anyone or religion, just that seeing the reality of believing something essentially written by humans over hundreds of years, really is a very huge leap of faith. I prefer to seek truths.
edit on 3-8-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Again,.. it's not a contradiction when dealing infinity..


So God is just an abstract concept? A mathematical concept? What? That answers nothing!


I've never tripped up over the Trinity, perhaps because of my background in mathematics... it's possible to conceptualize unity in plurality.


So can you explain it to me in layman's terms that doesn't contradict itself? Or is the concept of "God being infinity" just a thing one cant grasp unless they "have a background in mathematics"?

I also, have to ask: Many Christians don't have that background, do they still grasp that?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join