Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

Originally posted by TsukiLunar


Except he has used his company to donate to Anti-gay hate groups. Maybe you should read the other threads?

How do you feel about leftists groups and gay groups allying with Islamic groups who are pretty expressly anti-gay? Where is the outrage?

reply to post by humphreysjim

Do you reject parts of Leviticus?

Jesus Christ did.
That's what got him into trouble with the head Hebrews in charge.
True Christians shouldn't have a problem rejecting Leviticus.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

BTW OP, S&F.

If he was going to be consistent, with the word of God, he should have donated to anti-womens rights groups, anti-tattoo groups, anti-wizard groups, anti-asshole children groups, anti- haircut groups, ect, ect.

exactly. why do they like to pick and choose? didnt they do that with slavery and segregation?

You know what I found funny?



He should speak out against himself since he clearly has no beard

reply to post by TsukiLunar




Oh but didn't you know? Jesus Christ was sent to save us from hell and sin and none of those sins matter any more (according to religious morons).

They just cherry pick the "sins" they they deem to be ungodly and then run with them.... ignoring the literally hundreds of other sins from eating certain foods to shaving and working and everything else you can think of from the bible


This is why trying to use a 2000 year old fantasy book to judge people in today's world, you know, the world where we've landed on the moon and are aware of sub atomic particles and have an excellent and comprehensive fossil record, just doesn't work.... things changed.

Slavery was abolished.....Women got the vote.... The civil rights movement happened..... The Bible's "rules" have literally no place and no relevance in today's society.

MOST people realise that.... it's just a shame that there are still those ignorant idiots who pick and choose from the bible to support THEIR own bigotry and intolerance.

Jesus & God would be disgusted with them.

After all.... god created everyone and everything, including Gay People and Menstruating Women.

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.

Originally posted by PvtHudson

I don't believe in organized religion.

That doesn't change the fact that you're intentionally misrepresenting facts and trying to advance false narratives.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I never said Chick-Fil-A banned anyone. Show me where I did?

Again, I am asking the question whether Chick-Fil-A, who obviously want to take the words of the Bible seriously, should protect their customers from unclean women. If not, why not? It's such a simple question, and it's so obviously the case that they and others are picking and choosing parts of the Bible to suit their own agenda.

That's called a double-standard, I am pointing it out.

What, exactly, do you disagree with?

You know what, I'd put money on the fact that all of Chick-Fil-A's staff slept in the same bed as their wives when they were menstruating.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

Do you reject parts of Leviticus?

Jesus Christ did.
That's what got him into trouble with the head Hebrews in charge.
True Christians shouldn't have a problem rejecting Leviticus.

exactly. so in this sense. dan cathy is not a true christian?

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by PvtHudson

I don't believe in organized religion.

That doesn't change the fact that you're intentionally misrepresenting facts and trying to advance false narratives.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I never said Chick-Fil-A banned anyone. Show me where I did?

Again, I am asking the question whether Chick-Fil-A, who obviously want to take the words of the Bible seriously, should protect their customers from unclean women. If not, why not? It's such a simple question, and it's so obviously the case that they and others are picking and choosing parts of the Bible to suit their own agenda.

That's called a double-standard, I am pointing it out.

No, it would be a double standard if the store was "protecting its customers" from gay people, which it isn't. You're entire premise is based on lies and red herrings.

Originally posted by PvtHudson

No, it would be a double standard if the store was "protecting its customers" from gay people, which it isn't. You're entire premise is based on lies and red herrings.

How many times are you going to avoid the question and maintain your dignity?

Should they protect their customers from unclean women? If no, why not? That is the question of the thread.

It is a double-standard because they admittedly have an anti-gay agenda, and yet they do nothing to prevent menstruating women from endangering other customers. I'm sure if someone defecated on the floor they would be banned, so why is someone who is not even supposed to be in the same room as others according to their beliefs free to use their restaurant as they please?

Can you imagine how different things might have been if the Old Testament had never been published as part of the Bible? What if the Bible was only the New Testament? The teachings of Christ are so polar opposite of the Old Testament. Maybe these "Christian Gay issues" would have never been issues??? We'll never know for sure.

All I know is, the only thing in the Bible that ever made any sense to me is "love your neighbor as yourself", or "do unto others as you would have done to you". That's all you need to live by - nothing else. You don't need ten commandments, or anything out of the Old Testament. If everyone would live by the Golden Rule, all our problems would go away. ALL of them.

reply to post by PvtHudson

No, it would be a double standard if the store was "protecting its customers" from gay people, which it isn't. You're entire premise is based on lies and red herrings.

I would like to point out that donating to hate groups IS actively furthering a cause.

So answer me this, since he has donated to anti-gay groups, on the basis of religion, should he donate to anti-womens rights groups on the same basis? If not, isn't that hypocrisy?

can't believe how much this popular quote keeps making a lot of sense as i grow older...
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Mohandas Gandhi

Phew, and I thought ladies intimate hygiene products were expensive enough monthly. Now I'm supposed to buy two turtles and baby pigeons too..

*Typing from the shed*

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

I really hope that you are being sarcastic here....

I dunno, ask the Christians displaying the double-standard.

Who are we to pick and choose "God's word"?

...the problem with your OP is that you haven't rightly divided between Jewish and Christian text.
The Old Testament, including the books of the law, was written for Jews. The distinction is important; not only because it means that the Old Testament law only applies to Jews, but also, because it shows that the system established by God for the Jews is both political AND spiritual, which is not the case for Christianity. Thus many of the laws you read (those concerning menstruation are a perfect example) are civil laws; laws regarding cleanliness etc., which were in order to ensure that the children of Israel remained pure and separate from the people around them.

When you're talking about Christianity, you're talking about a purely religious system. There is not, nor will there ever be, a "Christian state". Christian identity is purely spiritual; Jewish identity is both physical AND spiritual. This is why Jews are circumcised - a physical sign of a physical affiliation with Yahweh. Christians, in contrast, are not circumcised (or at least, if they are, it's not as a sign of any covenant), because our relationship with Yahweh was established through a spiritual birth, not a physical birth.

Hopefully that makes sense.

So, if Chick-Fil-A speaks out against homsexuality, it does so because the Biblical principal is uniform; present in both old and new Testaments.
The statement regarding the menstrual cycle of women within Israel does not apply, however, because it is part of the religious/political system of the Jewish state.

To fill in the blanks here, the early church discussed the topic - "what laws should Christians follow?".
The answer to that question was as follows:

1. do not eat food that has been sacrificed to idols
   
2. do not eat the meat or blood of strangled animals
   
3. abstain from sexual immorality
   

This is found in Acts 21:25.

These are the ONLY Jewish laws that continue into the new covenant. 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.


Hopefully that helps clarify things a bit. Whether you agree with Chick-Fil-A or not, the logic is consistent.

reply to post by PvtHudson


He hasn't banned anyone.

He has used company money to donate to anti-gay hate groups.

Therefore his company has taken a clear stance against homosexuals.

reply to post by Awen24


Please show me where Jesus says that homosexuality is an abomination.

Originally posted by PvtHudson

No, it would be a double standard if the store was "protecting its customers" from gay people, which it isn't. You're entire premise is based on lies and red herrings.

Are they hate groups when the left allies with Islamic organizations that hate gays? Just curious where your double standards are.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

Do you reject parts of Leviticus?

Jesus Christ did.
That's what got him into trouble with the head Hebrews in charge.
True Christians shouldn't have a problem rejecting Leviticus.

exactly. so in this sense. dan cathy is not a true christian?

Yes, IMHO.
His teachings are plain and simple, yet so many 'Christians' choose to ignore some of the few basic tenets that he put forth.

reply to post by Awen24

To fill in the blanks here, the early church discussed the topic - "what laws should Christians follow?". The answer to that question was as follows:
1. do not eat food that has been sacrificed to idols
2. do not eat the meat or blood of strangled animals
3. abstain from sexual immorality

I am pretty sure those arent the only laws, but for the sake of argument I will assume they are.

What about the Ten Commandments? Do Cristians still have to follow those? Are those three the only way to get into hell now? What about the rest of the teachings of Christ? Do we consider them null and void or are they just guidelines to follow "when we feel like it"?

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

No, it would be a double standard if the store was "protecting its customers" from gay people, which it isn't. You're entire premise is based on lies and red herrings.

Are they hate groups when the left allies with Islamic organizations that hate gays? Just curious where your double standards are.

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