Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Peacemaker]

I want to point out here, because I'm sure that there's some evangelical Christian lurking around here or who will at some point that will believe or say "being gay is a choice." Really? You know something, not even Exodus International teaches that. Go read their own website. Here's a choice quote for you:

It is also important to understand that people do not choose to be homosexuals. No one wakes up one day when they are 15 or 20 or 50 years old and says, "I have been heterosexual all my life. Today I choose to be homosexual.” In fact, the experience of most people is that they felt different from their earliest memories. Further they did not want these feelings and resisted them for years.

Every so often you read or hear somebody in the pew say that, or, more importantly folks in the American Family Association. Now, let's think about that for a moment. Nobody ever stops to think how monumentally schizophrenic the "traditional family/anit-gay marriage" movement is. On the one hand they say "homosexuality is a choice" and on the other they promote Exodus International and its affiliates who say "homosexuality is not a choice." Isn't it well past time that these people all get on board with their own propaganda. If they don't believe it themselves, then why should anybody else believe it?

I want to comment on the debate of "is it a choice" cause I think a lot of people misunderstand what Christians mean when we say it's a choice.

I do not deny that you can be born with homosexual tendencies. I do fully believe you can be born with homosexual tendencies, just as you can be born with heterosexual tendencies. So flat out, I understand people are born certain ways, with certain tendencies. In that vein, it is not a choice.

What I mean by choice, is if the individual chooses to follow that path and commit the acts associated with the tendencies. For example, it is a choice to kiss someone of the same sex, it is a choice to have sex with someone of the same sex, it is a choice to marry someone of the same sex. All of these things are choices we make, I don't see how that can be disputed.

Therefore, while you may feel homosexual tendencies, all the actions you perform are choices you clearly make. Just as you can make the choice to kiss someone of the same sex, have sex with them, or get married, you can also make the opposite choice. You can chose not to kiss someone of the same sex, and chose not to have sex with them, and chose not to marry them. All of your actions are choices you make. Most people are in control of their actions and purposeful make choices.

How you live your life is all about choice, and you can chose to follow that path, or you can chose not to.

That is what we mean by choice.

That's nice, but the article from which I quoted is specifically addressing the statement that "homosexuality" is a choice. You don't get to speak for Exodus International, Exodus gets to speak for Exodus International. When they have to write an article to state that homosexuality is not a choice, they are addressing Christians using the "homosexuality is a choice" argument. I'll trust them on what they believe their own audience means. You should as well.

 

[Knight Templar]

That still doesn't make Paul's words as important as those of Christ..

Why not?

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

It depends on the circumstances.

 

[Amaris]

That still doesn't make Paul's words as important as those of Christ..

Why not?

Because anyone can say they come in the name of some supreme being. Paul's ministry began after Jesus died. All we have to back up Paul's assertions is Paul. In fact, some of Paul's teachings directly conflict with the teachings of Jesus, and yet this is glossed over entirely. Don't you find it at least notable that Paul, an ardent, violent enemy of Christianity, suddenly converts with a message that is significantly different than that of the faith's founder, yet carries holy authority?

 

[Peacemaker]

Why is it so hard for you and others to understand that the Old Testament/Old Covenant is not considered for Christians or binding upon them in any way?

This is what happens why you use Peacemaker as your "spiritual adv

isor".

Let's be clear here...According to KT, only members of his particular sect are true Christians, so his definition of "Christian" is rather eccentric. That's what he gets for being part of the Campbellite cult. He doesn't tell his readers here that, but we know that from elsewhere. So, what we can really say is that, according to KT, only the NT is binding on members of Campbellites. The followers of Alexander and Thomas Campbell never have been very bright.

The Old Covenant isn't binding? Really? The Ten Commandments are not binding. That's what that ultimately means.

What KT doesn't understand is that is so far out of his depth with me, he's criitquing a position that I hold that he doesn't even understand.

For starters "Testament" and "Covenant" are not convertible terms. The Old Testament and the Old Covenant are not the same thing. If the Old Testament isn't binding on Christians in any way, then there goes a whole of intertextuality between the OT and NT, you know, places where the NT writers quote from, allude to, and plain out state that the OT texts are binding on Christians.

He needs to bone up on this before he makes statements about what I believe that he can't cash. I tend toward the view held by Reformed Baptists, emphasizing discontinuity in some areas, where Presbyterians, with whom I worship, tend to emphasize slightly more continuity. That shows in two areas: our difference over baptism and the relationship between church and state.

KT is the one with the eccentric view, not I. That's what he gets for being ignorant. Thanks for advertising it for everybody, KT. You're a real hoot.

 

[Knight Templar]

In fact, some of Paul's teachings directly conflict with the teachings of Jesus, and yet this is glossed over entirely.?

For example?

And in regards to only having "Pauls word" there were at least two witnesses with him on the road to Damascus who also observed Saul's miraculous encounter with God and his subsequent blinding.

 

[The Dominion]

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

It depends on the circumstances.

Care to elaborate on said circumstances?

 

[cooleddie74]

That still doesn't make Paul's words as important as those of Christ..

Why not?

Because anyone can say they come in the name of some supreme being. Paul's ministry began after Jesus died. All we have to back up Paul's assertions is Paul. In fact, some of Paul's teachings directly conflict with the teachings of Jesus, and yet this is glossed over entirely. Don't you find it at least notable that Paul, an ardent, violent enemy of Christianity, suddenly converts with a message that is significantly different than that of the faith's founder, yet carries holy authority?

Not just all of that(great points BTW, John), but the faith is called "Christianity." Not "the Church of Paul." Paul wasn't the Son of God and the savior of mankind, nor was he even the founder of the faith. So no...his words wouldn't carry as much weight nor should they.

You follow and worship Jesus if you're a Christian, not Paul.

 

[boobatuba]

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

It depends on the circumstances.

Care to elaborate on said circumstances?

I'm curious about that, as well.

How are us good people to know which of Paul's teaching apply to us and which ones don't?

 

[Knight Templar]

Why is it so hard for you and others to understand that the Old Testament/Old Covenant is not considered for Christians or binding upon them in any way?

This is what happens why you use Peacemaker as your "spiritual adv

isor".

Let's be clear here...According to KT, only members of his particular sect are true Christians, so his definition of "Christian" is rather eccentric. That's what he gets for being part of the Campbellite cult. He doesn't tell his readers here that, but we know that from elsewhere. So, what we can really say is that, according to KT, only the NT is binding on members of Campbellites. The followers of Alexander and Thomas Campbell never have been very bright.

The Old Covenant isn't binding? Really? The Ten Commandments are not binding. That's what that ultimately means.

What KT doesn't understand is that is so far out of his depth with me, he's criitquing a position that I hold that he doesn't even understand.

For starters "Testament" and "Covenant" are not convertible terms. The Old Testament and the Old Covenant are not the same thing. If the Old Testament isn't binding on Christians in any way, then there goes a whole of intertextuality between the OT and NT, you know, places where the NT writers quote from, allude to, and plain out state that the OT texts are binding on Christians.

He needs to bone up on this before he makes statements about what I believe that he can't cash. I tend toward the view held by Reformed Baptists, emphasizing discontinuity in some areas, where Presbyterians, with whom I worship, tend to emphasize slightly more continuity. That shows in two areas: our difference over baptism and the relationship between church and state.

KT is the one with the eccentric view, not I. That's what he gets for being ignorant. Thanks for advertising it for everybody, KT. You're a real hoot.

Distinction without a difference PMR.

From what I've observed based on what you have posted here, your primary interest in Christianity is to turn it into a worthless "I'm okay, you're okay as long as you give a bunch on money to poor people". religion.

To put it precisely, you're in favor of a Christian belief system that means nothing at all.

Worthless.

 

[boobatuba]

To put it precisely, you're in favor of a Christian belief system that means nothing at all.

Worthless.

And you are, it would appear, in favor of a belief system that oppresses people simply because of who they are.

Worse than worthless. Bigoted.

 

[Knight Templar]

It depends on the circumstances.

Care to elaborate on said circumstances?

I'm curious about that, as well.

How are us good people to know which of Paul's teaching apply to us and which ones don't?

They all do.

Women can speak in the church but not exercise authority over an adult male Christian.

Women can instruct and teach children.

Older women can teach and instruct younger women.

Women can teach and instruct adult non Christians.

Woman can speak in reponse to an invitation of questions by an adult male Christian teacher.

I hope that is helpful.

 

[The Dominion]

And in regards to only having "Pauls word" there were at least two witnesses with him on the road to Damascus who also observed Saul's miraculous encounter with God and his subsequent blinding.

Two witnesses can validate Paul's words over Jesus's? I don't remember who those witnesses even were, are they even named?

 

[Knight Templar]

To put it precisely, you're in favor of a Christian belief system that means nothing at all.

Worthless.

And you are, it would appear, in favor of a belief system that oppresses people simply because of who they are.

Worse than worthless. Bigoted.

You're awfully quick to throw the word "bigot" around.

Especially without any evidence to support such an assertion.

 

[Knight Templar]

And in regards to only having "Pauls word" there were at least two witnesses with him on the road to Damascus who also observed Saul's miraculous encounter with God and his subsequent blinding.

Two witnesses can validate Paul's words over Jesus's? I don't remember who those witnesses even were, are they even named?

I never have claimed that Paul's words were "over Jesus's".

 

[boobatuba]

They all do.

Women can speak in the church but not exercise authority over an adult male Christian.

Women can instruct and teach children.

Older women can teach and instruct younger women.

Women can teach and instruct adult non Christians.

Woman can speak in reponse to an invitation of questions by an adult male Christian teacher.

I hope that is helpful.

So 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 doesn't apply today? How did you come to this conclusion, and where is the biblical support for the other laws you cite?

 

[nightwind1]

I've never eaten at a Chick-fil-A before. I don't even know if they're around here.

Now, I most certainly won't.

It's amazing to me that people can get so worked up over something that has no impact on them whatsoever. Who cares what two consenting adults do? It makes no difference to me.

There are two that I know of in our area.

And I agree with you. I don't share this man's anti-gay opinion, since that's all it is.But I'm not going to let a difference of opinion control what I do. I love Chick-a-fill and will continue to eat there no matter what he thinks.

And that's your choice.

But realize, if you DO continue to eat there, YOUR money is going to anti-gay, anti-civil rights hate groups.

If you truly don't share that shitstain's opinion, why would you want your money to support such groups?

 

[cooleddie74]

I hope that is helpful.

No, not really. None of this stuff ever is.

But thanks for playing. Hope you enjoy your complimentary Turtle Wax and Rice-a-Roni.

 

[Peacemaker]

Why is it so hard for you and others to understand that the Old Testament/Old Covenant is not considered for Christians or binding upon them in any way?

This is what happens why you use Peacemaker as your "spiritual adv

isor".

Let's be clear here...According to KT, only members of his particular sect are true Christians, so his definition of "Christian" is rather eccentric. That's what he gets for being part of the Campbellite cult. He doesn't tell his readers here that, but we know that from elsewhere. So, what we can really say is that, according to KT, only the NT is binding on members of Campbellites. The followers of Alexander and Thomas Campbell never have been very bright.

The Old Covenant isn't binding? Really? The Ten Commandments are not binding. That's what that ultimately means.

What KT doesn't understand is that is so far out of his depth with me, he's criitquing a position that I hold that he doesn't even understand.

For starters "Testament" and "Covenant" are not convertible terms. The Old Testament and the Old Covenant are not the same thing. If the Old Testament isn't binding on Christians in any way, then there goes a whole of intertextuality between the OT and NT, you know, places where the NT writers quote from, allude to, and plain out state that the OT texts are binding on Christians.

He needs to bone up on this before he makes statements about what I believe that he can't cash. I tend toward the view held by Reformed Baptists, emphasizing discontinuity in some areas, where Presbyterians, with whom I worship, tend to emphasize slightly more continuity. That shows in two areas: our difference over baptism and the relationship between church and state.

KT is the one with the eccentric view, not I. That's what he gets for being ignorant. Thanks for advertising it for everybody, KT. You're a real hoot.

Distinction without a difference PMR.

From what I've observed based on what you have posted here, your primary interest in Christianity is to turn it into a worthless "I'm okay, you're okay as long as you give a bunch on money to poor people". religion.

To put it precisely, you're in favor of a Christian belief system that means nothing at all.

Worthless.

If we take your view, then that ultimately leads to this: People in the Old Covenant were saved in a manner differently to the way people are saved today. In fact, I can document where people have stated that on your side of the aisle in fact - so your view is far, far more worthless, for it rejects the Gospel itself.

And considering that I've also argued for the veracity of the Gospel qua Gospel, not just issues of social justice, and that my position on gay marriage in the US is that it is a Constitutional, not a religious issue, and that I have repeatedly said so, and, I've pointed you to the Second Baptist London Confession for what I affirm, so all of your statement is a baldfaced lie, and you know that to be true.

Like I said before: Knight Templar, enabler of liars - he believes the Bible (well what he thinks the NT says, not the Bible itself) on marriage and family, but when it comes to things like taxes (Romans 13) and the 9th Commandment (Proverbs 12), and gluttony (Proverbs 12), he's a little iffy.

You're the very definition of the Pharisee who tithed his mint and cumin, etc. but found ways to declare his other possessions corban to weasel out of his other obligations. There is nothing Christian about you. You're a bigot, liar, and internet troll part of Dayton's franchise, who doesn't even believe the Gospel - for, as I've pointed out beforehand, your faith isn't in Christ alone, it is in Christ and your membership in your particular local church,and gettin' them sins washed away when you wuz baptized. That's the very definition of justification by faith plus works. You say you believe Paul, but you deny the entire book of Galatians. Savor the irony. Worthless Christianity? Look in the mirror.

 

[Knight Templar]

it is in Christ and your membership in your particular local church,and gettin' them sins washed away when you wuz baptized. That's the very definition of justification by faith plus works..

That is what the New Testament says. I see you disregard James in what he says about "faith without works is dead".

 

[scotpens]

Only, you know, homosexuals are real people, the Bible is a novel.

More like a collection or an anthology, actually. Kind of like The Martian Chronicles.