Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

Originally posted by wildtimes
The guy is a bigoted douche, in charge of a corporation, and he said and did those things.

You appear to feel that defending the traditional concept of marriage constitutes being a bigoted douche.

I am afraid that you have a severe case of political correctness.

It is quite common in Liberal circles and extremely common in cells of Marxists.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

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?

I can't speak for other Christians I don't know and in layman's terms I would compare the Trinity to white light.

It is made up of several colors yet joined together makes one color of light. It's a rather clumsy example but it does the trick.

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

And why do states have marriage rights in the first place? Did you ever bother to find out?

State marriage rights are based 100% in pure discrimination. States were given the right of marriage to deny/prevent any undesirables from settling in their state.

A Federal Marriage Act (which will happen eventually) will over ride states banning gay marriage.

I will happily eat in a Chick-Fil-A and by the sounds of things, I am not the only one. Chick-Fil-A has been experiencing a surge in business!

Central Texas Chick-Fil-A Sees Ten-Fold Increase in Business Today

Link

So much for the boycott that has fallen flat on its face.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by wildtimes
The guy is a bigoted douche, in charge of a corporation, and he said and did those things.

You appear to feel that defending the traditional concept of marriage constitutes being a bigoted douche.

I am afraid that you have a severe case of political correctness.

It is quite common in Liberal circles and extremely common in cells of Marxists.

Well, I defend the traditional concept of marriage - I am heterosexual, married, staying at home to raise our daughter, and still married to my first husband. Thing is, I also defend gay marriage, and I also defend divorce when someone is in a miserable marriage. Why can't we have it all? Then everybody is happy. One situation does not negate another, so what's the problem?

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

Originally posted by Annee
A Federal Marriage Act (which will happen eventually) will over ride states banning gay marriage.

Gays and lesbians are alright, but they don't have the right to over turn state laws reflecting the wishes of the democratic majority.

That's how democracy works.

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

Originally posted by Annee
A Federal Marriage Act (which will happen eventually) will over ride states banning gay marriage.

Gays and lesbians are alright, but they don't have the right to over turn state laws reflecting the wishes of the democratic majority.

That's how democracy works.

Why not - the blacks did it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

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?

I can't speak for other Christians I don't know and in layman's terms I would compare the Trinity to white light.

It is made up of several colors yet joined together makes one color of light. It's a rather clumsy example but it does the trick.

Sorry, not really getting the analogy here.

So is it that God can be all three given the right circumstances, but at the same time is still split up into separate parts that are also together but different?

I am sorry, but the "light" analogy kind of makes sense, but any sort of questioning makes it completely fall apart. Its like the plot to Highlander 2.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by humphreysjim


Do 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?

I don't know why you all get stuck on twisting God's Word into a different version of the same question over and over again.
The whole point of the Bible is to show that we are ALL sinners and need God's grace not works to cleanse us.
A homosexual = sinner
thief = sinner
adulterer = sinner
murderer = sinner
blasphemer = sinner
etc... = sinner
ALL of us, every single one = sinner

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Why not - the blacks did it.

Yes, I have already pointed out that the gays are the new coloreds.

Everyone knows that gays are descended from slaves and were until recently forced to sit at the back of the bus.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Thing is, I also defend gay marriage... ...Why can't we have it all? Then everybody is happy.

Everyone is not happy, as is evidenced by it having been rejected in 31 states when it went to the vote.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

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.

Good - I've had enough debates for awhile. And I can definitely agree with this much, as I view it more of a continuation and refinement of the Tanakh, with elucidation by 'Jesus'

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. 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.

I will have to take a little issue with this...I could honestly not care much less for anything that's ever issued from the Vatican itself (the texts of the bible and various pseudopigrapha and other "lost" works well predate any actual christian "authoritative" establishment in Rome).

As to the RCC being the only christianity...well, I'll agree it was the only one with any significant weight of force, but they killed off or otherwise actively fought a lot of true faithful otherwise, such as the Cathars, etc. Rome by no means had an actual monopoly on a solitary christian doctrine, though...and all too often kept its adherents in the dark.

As to your second paragraph, I feel it's amply addressed by what I've responded so far. What was written by those in the first century primarily in the area of palestine is really all that concerns me, not anything issued via papal bulls or edicts, catholic tradition, or anything else coming mainly out of Rome.

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

Absolutely agreed with the very opening. As to your interpretation of the scriptures, I can definitely understand the view (and in SOME cases, mainly scientology and some others, absolutely agree with it as well), but cannot entirely subscribe to it. Based on the manuscript evidence, I can certainly admit that some amount of interpolation by men did affect the original message (thankfully we can backtrack or compare to get a pretty solid grasp on root sources), but I do certainly believe that a good bit of religious writing does have non-human origins.

Don't take me the wrong way there, though - I also firmly believe that not everything in the bible (yes, I know this technically makes me a heretic) is divine or the word of god. I believe there is a lot that is just history (primarily in the tanakh), commentary (primarily in the epistles on the part of Paul and the others), and so forth.

I'd have to say as applied to the entirety of the included texts, I am not a subscriber to the theory of biblical inerrancy, as I do definitely believe that parts of it ARE merely men documenting various histories and their interaction with something greater than themselves, and providing their thoughts on it. But as to the bulk of alleged transmission from these things greater than themselves, I don't doubt they are faithful accounts (later interpolations aside, as mentioned).

And I extend this to other faiths as well...I'm one of the odd ones who believes the old stories might actually all be true, even if some bit has been lost or confused in translation/transmission. As far as I'm concerned, though, it's just a matter of who to trust and what was actually being dealt with - claims aside.

Thank you very much for your input, though - as far as what you've said about the pope/Rome (and as far as I'm concerned, the derivative romish churches of protestantism, etc.) and the rest, I almost entirely agree.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Why not - the blacks did it.

Yes, I have already pointed out that the gays are the new coloreds.

Everyone knows that gays are descended from slaves and were until recently forced to sit at the back of the bus.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Thing is, I also defend gay marriage... ...Why can't we have it all? Then everybody is happy.

Everyone is not happy, as is evidenced by it having been rejected in 31 states when it went to the vote.

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

Yes, blacks and gays have much in common, when it comes to civil rights, and discrimination. What's your point?

My question is - why is "everyone" not happy? How does gay marriage affect them in any way shape or form? There are gay people getting married right this minute, and yet, my marriage is still the same as it was yesterday. The people who go out and vote on this are haters of gays - plain and simple. Most people don't vote on it all, because it isn't even on their radar, as it doesn't affect them one way or another.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Why not - the blacks did it.

Yes, I have already pointed out that the gays are the new coloreds.

Everyone knows that gays are descended from slaves and were until recently forced to sit at the back of the bus.

Gays can be descended from any citizen, so some may be the descendants of slaves, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have been forced into hiding our sexuality until recently under threat of arrest (thankfully "sodomy" is no longer illegal), harassment, assault, and even murder.

Is a little respect and fair treatment too much to ask for? Apparently for the majority of Americans, it is. Thank god I'm not an American.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
The people who go out and vote on this are haters of gays - plain and simple.

There we have it. Defending the traditional concept of marriage now amounts to hate according to somewhat confused liberals and communists.

Well done. May you now join the exalted ranks of the politically correct thought police.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
The people who go out and vote on this are haters of gays - plain and simple.

There we have it. Defending the traditional concept of marriage now amounts to hate according to somewhat confused liberals and communists.

Well done. May you now join the exalted ranks of the politically correct thought police.

What is your point? Tell us why you don't want gays to marry.

Sorry, accidentally clicked the "post" button. I had more to add so i hope you stayed tuned.

Why do you care about other interpretations of the concept of "marriage". Saying that "you want to defend traditional (abstract) concepts" is complete bull. Why does gay people getting married bother you?

Originally posted by ollncasino

There we have it. Defending the traditional concept of marriage now amounts to hate according to somewhat confused liberals and communists.

The "traditional concept of marriage" does not require defending. The religious right has already failed to defend it against divorce, which is arguably the worst enemy of traditional marriage due to its ability to end a life-long commitment before death, and yet traditional marriage continues to exist.

There is no valid reason that non-traditional marriages cannot coexist with traditional marriages.

Originally posted by Glass
Is a little respect and fair treatment too much to ask for?

Are you asking me to respect you for being gay?

Look mate, being gay doesn't make you special as much as you appear to think it does.



Really, gays. Their own worst enemy at times.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
What is your point? Tell us why you don't want gays to marry.

Married is a legal union between a man and a women.

I take if you have nothing against people of the same sex getting married, then you have no objection to 3 men getting married.

Yes or no.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Glass
Is a little respect and fair treatment too much to ask for?

Are you asking me to respect you for being gay?

Look mate, being gay doesn't make you special as much as you appear to think it does.



Really, gays. Their own worst enemy at times.

Well, if we would just allow them to have equal rights all of that would stop(hopefully). Dealing with that is the punishment for making them 2nd class citizens.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
What is your point? Tell us why you don't want gays to marry.

Married is a legal union between a man and a women.

I take if you have nothing against people of the same sex getting married, then you have no objection to 3 men getting married.

Yes or no.

Yes or No? That is not my choice. Show me where I am involved or where an unwilling party is involved then i will answer.