Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

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.

So, you admit that the Bible was just written by people - people who weren't very knowledgeable about science, or medicine or hygiene practices. People of a certain ancient culture who had beliefs based on myths and good old-fashioned storytelling. Yep - that sounds about right.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

So, you admit that the Bible was just written by people - people who weren't very knowledgeable about science, or medicine or hygiene practices. People of a certain ancient culture who had beliefs based on myths and good old-fashioned storytelling. Yep - that sounds about right.

Exactly.

One thing is common to Christians (and fundamentalists of all religions) of all shapes and sizes - they are defeated by their own arguments at every step. Rarely do they say anything that is not contradicted by something they said or implied previously, a bit like the Bible itself.

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?

reply to post by humphreysjim


I think when making a point about christian doctrine you will find it best to stick to the new testament if you are referencing rules to be followed. Unless you are addressing jewish law of course. Reading through the new you will find that a new covenant was to be made through christ. Hebrews 8 is a good reference concerning this. You can still find plenty to wonder about within the new exclusively to wonder why christians don't follow the things presented. In order to question the doctrine its helpful to looks at the doctrine and how it is presented. I am not aware of anything regarding menstruation in the new testament that would support this line of argument.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

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.

So, you admit that the Bible was just written by people - people who weren't very knowledgeable about science, or medicine or hygiene practices. People of a certain ancient culture who had beliefs based on myths and good old-fashioned storytelling. Yep - that sounds about right.

More than that....
It was written by men that wanted to maintain their system of patriarchal control over mostly unlearned masses , their subjects.

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

I think when making a point about christian doctrine you will find it best to stick to the new testament if you are referencing rules to be followed. Unless you are addressing jewish law of course. Reading through the new you will find that a new covenant was to be made through christ. Hebrews 8 is a good reference concerning this. You can still find plenty to wonder about within the new exclusively to wonder why christians don't follow the things presented. In order to question the doctrine its helpful to looks at the doctrine and how it is presented. I am not aware of anything regarding menstruation in the new testament that would support this line of argument.

The double-standard still exists and this does not deflect from my argument in the slightest, because if we take away the OT there is little to condemn homosexuality at all, and nothing from Jesus. The laws of the NT are simply to love they neighbour as thyself, and love and worship God with all your heart.

There is a reason Leviticus is nearly always quoted by Christians with an anti-gay agenda, because without it they don't have much to go on. So either throw out the OT or don't, but don't pick and choose as pleases you.

If Christians would truly do away with the OT and follow the NT and Jesus' teachings, there would be less problems, but so few actually do. Jesus taught love, but Christians are generally are full of hate.

Oh, and as already mentioned, the references to menstruating women being unclean are simple, Universal statements, not laws as such. Unclean is unclean, it is not like menstruating women instantly became cleaner once Jesus sacrificed himself, that's nonsense.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

Chick-Fil-A didn't ban anyone.

no one said they did.

The way the title is worded the implication is they already did.

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.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

Chick-Fil-A didn't ban anyone.

no one said they did.

The way the title is worded the implication is they already did.

how so?

reply to post by humphreysjim


Don't misunderstand, I am not arguing there aren't double standards at all. My only intention was to point out according to my experiences the old law does not apply. Any christian that says it does has a long road ahead of them. I agree with you that most of the stance for things the auto reference is old testament, and in the same breath if you ask if they have been for the sacrifice this year they will say the old law doesn't apply.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Originally posted by PvtHudson

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.

here is what he is really asking? "Why can't Dan Cathy protect their customers from Chick-Fil-A employees who might menstruating which causes customers to violate the word of Gaud according to the Bible?"

reply to post by TsukiLunar

You make a good point in your post, but we are dealing with metaphysical things when debating religion.

What part of consciousness has to do with physics? I have yet to see where physics can explain the phenomena of awareness.

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?

They don't have a history of banning anyone, but they do have a history of taking the Bible seriously. So, I am asking, since they take the Bible seriously, whether they should ban menstruating women due to the Bible's stance on the issue.

Nothing whatsoever in the title implies they have banned anyone to this point. Your skewed misinterpretation of what you think I was saying is your issue and not mine, I'm afraid.

The title of the thread is a question, nothing more, nothing less. You, like every other Christian who has weighed in on this thread, has refused to answer it, and that speaks volumes I think.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

You make a good point in your post, but we are dealing with metaphysical things when debating religion.

What part of consciousness has to do with physics? I have yet to see where physics can explain the phenomena of awareness.

Thank you for the reply.

Things we don't understand and concepts that are clearly contradict each other are two different things.

The Bible attempts to explain what God is, yet it does a piss poor job. Saying something is one thing yet another just adds more mystery and it seems as if that was the point. All the Bible does is bring up more twenty questions for every one it answers.

However, that is not really my point.

My point is that we can not grasp the concept of God without some kind of logical reasoning behind it. Our minds do not work in this weird anti-logic. If God was God, he would know this.

We can make jumps in logic, sure, but when presented with clearly contradicting descriptions there is simply no way to reason it out. So we have to accept it without truly considering what it all means and how it would truly fit together.

You mention the "metaphysical" well that doesn't really exist. It is just a way way to explain away logical inconsistencies of the existence of something we don't understand. Or something we wish to be true but cant explain.

For example: Lightning used to be in the realm of metaphysical. It used to be the work of the Gods. Now we understand it better and can explain how it works and why it happens.

Okay, I lost my line of thought...

Oh, consciousness. Okay, being aware of our own awareness is a big mystery. Specifically "Free will", I guess. I don't know why we have that. But then I don't know why we wouldn't. There are a lot of things we do not know, which is completely fine.

However, I am hesitant to rely on answers from a book that has gotten almost all the fact wrong. A book that specifically asks me to not think about the inconsistencies is even worse.

Not to mention "Because of God" isn't an explanation at all.

(Takes a shot of tequila)

I don't know if there is more to "my life" than this life that I will live till I die.

I certainly do know that even if there was it would have to work in logical way that could be explained. If something exist, it can be explained. Like I said, presenting a contradicting(or illogical) explanation for something is not explaining anything.

If God exist, his existence can be explained.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

I think that I can agree with you almost entirely.
Here would be the exception:

If God exist, his existence can be explained.

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.

Otherwise, I'm in agreement.

reply to post by humphreysjim


OMG!!!!!!! I Could be unclean and not even know it!!!


Everyone could be

UNCLEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why doesn't Chic-fil-A ban these unclean women....
Why don't they disinfect their chairs?!?
O LORD!!!!
Where's Rush Limbaugh on this subject?