Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Misfit Toy]

Paul condemns it in the New Testament as well.

Paul is not to be worshiped as Christ.

He is not worshipped.

But his writings in the New Testament are equal to everything else.

His writings are not equal to the words of Christ. That you elevate them to that level is "odd".

Paul wrote to a specific people about a specific problem at a specific time.

 

[boobatuba]

But his writings in the New Testament are equal to everything else.

Paul said: "God is not the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the Bible.

 

[Amaris]

You do not believe in the Bible, so there is no point in trying to discuss it with you.

You are simply trolling.

Admiral Troll

Are you signing off with "Admiral Troll"?

he can't even sling shit at me without hitting himself now.

You don't tug on Superman's cape.
You don't spit into the wind.
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger.
And you don't mess around with Chem.

 

[Kemaiku]

You don't tug on Superman's cape.
You don't spit into the wind.
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger.
And you don't mess around with Chem.

moi?

so equal to the new bit i wrote in then? yay i'm a prophet!!!

Make sure your Gospel is available on Kindle, I'm cutting down on paperbacks.

 

[cooleddie74]

Space Buddha and Raptor Jesus are very disappointed in this thread.

And want better chicken sandwiches. But that's not important right now.

 

[IndyJones]

In the New Testament it says that even if an angel from heaven comes and speaks something contradictory then it is to be disregarded.

What if he changed his mind again?

You claim he did between the NT and the OT, why couldn't it happen again?

 

[Avon]

damn, i forgot this thread was about food

i bet there's a correlation between bigotry and waist size.

 

[Kemaiku]

The Third Testament: Jesus' Revenge

 

[Knight Templar]

And the superstitious writings of illiterate primitives in the Middle East around 30 AD means what exactly to the laws and rights of the people in the United States in 2012?

You do not believe in the Bible, so there is no point in trying to discuss it with you.

You are simply trolling.

Admiral Troll

If you want to ever have a real "discussion" about homosexual rights you can't limit it to just one side of the argument. You can't have a real "discussion" when the only posts allowed or tolerated are endless advocacy of homosexual rights.

And if you really want a "discussion" you got to be willing to extend a level of respect and politeness to those who advocate political beliefs that you might find abhorrent.

Same goes for people with different opinions about the Bible, buddy.

Different opinions about the Bible yes.

But the opinion of flat out, total rejection is not a valid discussion opinion because it makes any kind of discussion impossible.

It would be me like saying that "homosexuals do not exist" and then arguing about them. You got to have a common base somewhere in order to discuss an issue.

 

[1001001]

Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...lionaire-singer-in-gay-marriage-donation.html

"Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos is contributing $2.5 million to an effort to keep same-sex marriage legal in Washington, joining hedge-fund managers including Paul Singer and Cliff Asness in backing the issue in U.S. states.

The gift from the Seattle-based Internet retailer’s founder and his wife, MacKenzie, is the largest from an individual in support of gay vows, according to a statement today from Washington United for Marriage. The coalition is working to get voters to support same-sex nuptials in November, when similar referendums will also be held in Maine, Maryland and Minnesota."

 

[Knight Templar]

In the New Testament it says that even if an angel from heaven comes and speaks something contradictory then it is to be disregarded.

What if he changed his mind again?

You claim he did between the NT and the OT, why couldn't it happen again?

He did not change his mind. God's overall plan was always to offer belief in his son Jesus and obedience to him and of course Jesus sacrifice.

But due to the extreme level of evil in the world, God had to introduce the Old Convenant as a way of attempting to prepare the world for it.

 

[Kemaiku]

Only, you know, homosexuals are real people, the Bible is a novel. Comparing the two, or using the latter to infringe on the former, is never going to end well.

 

[The Dominion]

Different opinions about the Bible yes.

But the opinion of flat out, total rejection is not a valid discussion opinion because it makes any kind of discussion impossible.

It would be me like saying that "homosexuals do not exist" and then arguing about them. You got to have a common base somewhere in order to discuss an issue.

He did not claim the Bible doesn't exist, he claimed he didn't believe it was true, which is a very valid opinion.

 

[Misfit Toy]

In the New Testament it says that even if an angel from heaven comes and speaks something contradictory then it is to be disregarded.

What if he changed his mind again?

You claim he did between the NT and the OT, why couldn't it happen again?

He did not change his mind. God's overall plan was always to offer belief in his son Jesus and obedience to him and of course Jesus sacrifice.

But due to the extreme level of evil in the world, God had to introduce the Old Convenant as a way of attempting to prepare the world for it.

Again - Paul wrote to a specific people about a specific problem at a specific time. Isn't that what you'e claiming about the OT?

 

[Trekker4747]

In the United States we routinely deny civil rights to pedophiles and rapists to list but 2 examples.

If you believe that denial of rights is okay for people who commit certain sexual acts, then denial of civil rights to those who actually commit homosexual acts is more than reasonable.

Bullshit. Rapists are criminals who harm other people through violent acts of barbarism in forcing themselves on other people in sexual manner.

And we don't deny civil rights to pedophiles. It's not illegal to be a pedophile. It is, however, illegal to act on those desires and take indecent liberties with a child (or partake in pornography derived from the harm of a child.) Which, again, if a child is being harmed or violated in some manner (even if only with a picture being taken) then a crime is being committed.

Homosexuals commit no crime by being attracted to someone of the same sex.

 

[Amaris]

In the New Testament it says that even if an angel from heaven comes and speaks something contradictory then it is to be disregarded.

What if he changed his mind again?

You claim he did between the NT and the OT, why couldn't it happen again?

It's interesting when you consider Malachi 3:3-9 (the Old Testament), which states:

" And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. 4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation."

So not only does God want the poor to be treated fairly; remuneration properly directed to where it belongs without being withheld; but that he also never changes. That is affirmed later, in Hebrews (the New Testament), where God says:

1 Let brotherly love continue.
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

I honestly don't think these people read this book. They hear by rote and repetition, and they never actually learn anything.

 

[Knight Templar]

What if he changed his mind again?

You claim he did between the NT and the OT, why couldn't it happen again?

He did not change his mind. God's overall plan was always to offer belief in his son Jesus and obedience to him and of course Jesus sacrifice.

But due to the extreme level of evil in the world, God had to introduce the Old Convenant as a way of attempting to prepare the world for it.

Again - Paul wrote to a specific people about a specific problem at a specific time. Isn't that what you'e claiming about the OT?

Paul sent his letters to specific churches and in parts of the addressed specific issues.

In others he addressed problems and concerns of all people.

 

[The Dominion]

He did not change his mind. God's overall plan was always to offer belief in his son Jesus and obedience to him and of course Jesus sacrifice.

But due to the extreme level of evil in the world, God had to introduce the Old Convenant as a way of attempting to prepare the world for it.

Then why didn't he send Jesus out earlier and save everyone a lot of trouble and suffering? What a douche.

And you can construe God's commands in the OT as some intense loving discipline all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's riddled with barbarities that should be beyond a totally benevolent all-powerful being. Certainly he could have come up with a better way of ridding the world of evil than drowning 99% of the population, especially when he already knew it wasn't going to work. What a moron.

 

[cooleddie74]

That still doesn't make Paul's words as important as those of Christ. And Christ never said anything detrimental about homosexuality. If he did I'm sure it'd be in there somewhere because it would have reinforced the cultural norms and prejudices of the time. And I don't think he ever did. For all sorts of reasons.

 

[boobatuba]

Again - Paul wrote to a specific people about a specific problem at a specific time. Isn't that what you'e claiming about the OT?

It would be interesting to see if KT approves of women speaking in church...what with all that noise in Corinthians and all.