Chik-fil-a

[ktCarl]

So now you guys are resorting to choking chickens?!

[E-Vol-ution]

So now you guys are resorting to choking chickens?!

He,he, he.........

[Walter Brennan]

I think we're at a stand still as well. You're interpreting it one way, and I another. Thats why it's interesting.

Seems like some are painting with a broad brush stroke statement for something that was a relatively pigeon holed question. That of course is just my interpretation.

How does this nullify my position? If your point was that on the cross he relieved us of our sins and many of those laws, why is the one about the gays ones that remain? Wouldn't that nullify your position on the Mosaic laws if that was the stance Jesus took on it?


Adopted practices of the Chuch? You might want to reread Leviticus 21. Strong lead in statement.

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy. ’”

That doesn't look like an adopted Jewish tradition. Looks like a commandment to me.

You're right. The practices of man are not always consistent with the Will of God. I'd imagine a man to be quite silly trying to tell others what the Will of God is. Unless he's a prophet whom receives information from God, then all they are doing is listing their own interpretation. As I listed earlier, you can interpret the bible in a way that supports almost any position with enough posturing and pulling words out of context.



Not sure where you're going with that.


There are all sorts of interesting relationships in the Bible and methods that they went about to get them. Honestly I've never been to curious about incestuous relationships so I've never bothered to do much research on it. I've got gay family members and friends and have seen some terrible treatment by otherwise "Good christians" so I've been more interested in that.



The point was you can twist words of the Bible to fit many arguments if you choose to. How you interpret it is up to you.

I interpret Jesus revoking the treatments to those that aren't the same as you and creating an inclusive society of love, kindness, and understanding as a clear indicator of how I choose to live and what rights I'd like to bestow upon others regardless of their creeds, sex, color, or sexual persuasion.

nm

[Walter Brennan]

Austin109;2000334]

How does this nullify my position? If your point was that on the cross he relieved us of our sins and many of those laws, why is the one about the gays ones that remain? Wouldn't that nullify your position on the Mosaic laws if that was the stance Jesus took on it?

The Levitical Laws can be grouped into Moral law, Ceremonial Law and Civil Law. The NT and Jesus persistently cite the continuing admonishion of Moral Law whereas Ceremonial Law and its punishments were intended for the Jews and made the Christian aware of his sin.

Adopted practices of the Church? You might want to reread Leviticus 21. Strong lead in statement.

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy. ’”

That doesn't look like an adopted Jewish tradition. Looks like a commandment to me.

My apologies, I worded my response poorly. Jesus heeling lepers wasn't a condemnation or a statement on His part as to the Law itself.

You're right. The practices of man are not always consistent with the Will of God.I'd imagine a man to be quite silly trying to tell others what the Will of God is.Unless he's a prophet whom receives information from God, then all they are doing is listing their own interpretation.

By this definition there is no room to spread the Gospel of Christ or to even say that murder is a sin. Ones inability to define perfectly the Will of God doesn't translate to the Christian to lay claim to ANY knowledge of the Bible. What is plausible or probable doesn't make it an imperative.

As I listed earlier, you can interpret the bible in a way that supports almost any position with enough posturing and pulling words out of context.

True, yet scripture interprets scripture. The interpretation that is error cannot be reconciled to the remainder of the Bible.

There are all sorts of interesting relationships in the Bible and methods that they went about to get them. Honestly I've never been to curious about incestuous relationships so I've never bothered to do much research on it. I've got gay family members and friends and have seen some terrible treatment by otherwise "Good christians" so I've been more interested in that.

It appears that you just admitted to being biased. Even more, the error of the Christian doesn't nullify scripture.
With this personal interest concerning gays and the Bible, have you come up with and found gay relationships in the Bible? Have you found one single nod by God or Jesus specifically advocating or condoning such a relationship?

The point was you can twist words of the Bible to fit many arguments if you choose to. How you interpret it is up to you.

I interpret Jesus revoking the treatments to those that aren't the same as you and creating an inclusive society of love, kindness, and understanding as a clear indicator of how I choose to live and what rights I'd like to bestow upon others regardless of their creeds, sex, color, or sexual persuasion.

Honestly, this statement is so broad and watery that it really can't be addressed. You commingle Jesus loving a person as also accepting their sin. You suppose that ones physical traits and their personal actions as being interchangeable.
The biggest advocate for not sinning is Jesus Christ Himself. At no time and in no place has Jesus gave license to sin, not even a little or even once.
You attempt to reconcile Gods moral law with American pop culture which are in opposition.
You interpret scripture from the perspective of not seeking Gods Will but from a perspective of mans desires. You are an apologist for man and not so much an apologist for God.

[pied]

Yeah, we probably saw this coming.

Chick-fil-A vows to stop donating to anti-gay groups


Chick-fil-A will no longer donate money to anti-gay groups or discuss hot-button political issues after an executive's controversial comments this summer landed the fast-food chain in the middle of the gay marriage debate.

Executives agreed in recent meetings to stop funding groups opposed to same-sex unions, including Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage, according to Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno.

...

In July, as Cathy's comments inflamed passions nationwide, Moreno threatened to block a new Chick-fil-A restaurant planned for his area. He said that the company "had a poor record when it came to acknowledging equal rights for all our citizens" and that it discriminated against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender job seekers and workers.

In short order, mayors from New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and elsewhere weighed in on the issue, joined by other politicians, celebrities and hundreds of thousands of consumers.

Supporters swarmed restaurants around the country in early August, as protesters gathered outside, for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, launched by former presidential candidate and conservative Mike Huckabee.

A report from LGBT advocacy group Equality Matters found that from 2003 to 2009, Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million to Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. In 2010, the fast-food company gave nearly $2 million to such causes, according to the report.

But on Wednesday, Moreno said the chain sent him a letter saying that its nonprofit WinShape Foundations arm "is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process, will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas." Moreno wouldn't release the full contents of the letter.

Chick-fil-A also agreed to amend an official company document to reflect that its "intent is not to engage in political or social debates," Moreno said.

The company document, called "Chick-fil-A: Who We Are," also will state that the chain will "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation and gender."
...

Branding experts, such as Jeff Lotman, said the change was a smart one by Chick-fil-A.

"I guarantee you it's already brought in more traffic, and sales are up because of this," said Lotman, who founded brand licensing agency Global Icons.

"The amount of time their name has been in various forms of media has been more valuable than any advertising they'd spend on in a year," he said. "It raises awareness of Chick-fil-A to the top of people's minds."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...es+-+Business)

[mad_fan]

Yeah, we probably saw this coming.






http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...es+-+Business)

Didn't see it coming...
Today at the office...chick-fil-a or whataburger???
Someone brought up the headline...
My #1 with cheese, mustard, no tomatoes was awesome...
But that's only six orders lost for one day...
We'll come around...