Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Amaris]

For example?

Example 1

JESUS: "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark 2:15-17

PAUL: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1st Corinthians 5:11

Example 2

JESUS: "The apostles gathered themselves together to Jesus, and they told him all things, whatever they had done, and whatever they had taught. He said to them, "You come apart into a deserted place, and rest awhile." For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.

They went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. They saw them going, and many recognized him and ran there on foot from all the cities. They arrived before them and came together to him. Jesus came out, saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things. When it was late in the day, his disciples came to him, and said, "This place is deserted, and it is late in the day. Send them away, that they may go into the surrounding country and villages, and buy themselves bread, for they have nothing to eat."

But he answered them, "You give them something to eat."
They asked him, "Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give them something to eat?"
He said to them, "How many loaves do you have? Go see."

When they knew, they said, "Five, and two fish."
He commanded them that everyone should sit down in groups on the green grass. They sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties. He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke the loaves, and he gave to his disciples to set before them, and he divided the two fish among them all. They all ate, and were filled. They took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and also of the fish. Those who ate the loaves were five thousand men." Mark 6:30-44

PAUL: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." 2nd Thessalonians 3:10


There are many more such examples, but I think two are enough, for the moment, to establish that Paul wasn't operating within the holy authority that he so claimed.

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.

So what you're saying is that if a man says he was abducted by aliens, and his two friends agree with him because they say they saw it all happen, and that there were no other witnesses, then the man is automatically telling the truth and his words given authoritative merit?

 

[cooleddie74]

Be careful, J.

You'll make his head explode. And TNZ is just clean out of Windex.

 

[nightwind1]

Hell is a real place, and I just gotta say, it's not a place I wanna go, it's no joke. I'm constantly amazed how many people aren't afraid of it. It's going to be a terrible, terrible place, and it is so easy to avoid. Again, another choice I suppose we must make in life. Put your faith in Jesus, ask him to forgive you for you sins, call out to him and ask him to save you from sin, enjoy the peace that overcomes you and the knowledge that you are on the path to Heaven, following a righteous God, a savior who wants the best for you, Jesus is that way, and the only way. I don't want anyone here to end up in the other place, I beg of you, do this now, this is your chance, your life on this Earth is your chance.

I have.

Many years ago.

And it's my faith in God that has me finding the attitude of various posters here disgusting, aborhent, un-Christian, and sinful.

 

[Peacemaker]

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".

Wrong. Justification by faith alone is a falth that works; it's a species of Sola Gratia. It isn't antinomian. To characterize it otherwise is to lie. The fact that James uses the word "justify" doesn't mean the epistle is articulating a theology of justification. That commits two semantic fallacies.

a. Semantic Incest: This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.

b. Semantic Inflation:The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word.

For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.

Your faith is in a work-baptism, a form of circumcision. Not baptized as a believer = not a Christian. Remission of sins cannot be enjoyed by any person before immersion,” in Christian Baptism, page 531; “Immersion is the converting act . . . immersion and regeneration are two Bible names for the same act,” in Harbinger Extra; F.D. Kershner writing for the Disciples of Christ echoing Campbell: “Baptism by immersion is an act of obedience to Christ, and as such is necessary for the remission of sins and salvation,” cited in F.E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America, page 384

Faith in Christ alone - not enough. That's a direct contradiction to Romans and Galatians. You assess the validity of others' faith in terms of membership in your religious sect. That's the very definition of ecclesiolatry.

You lie with impunity; your faith is merit based on baptism and it's divided (not in Christ's merits alone), and you're an ecclesiolater.

Now, this is the part where you point your fingers and say "But you're gay" and accuse me of antinomianism.

A. That begs the question with respect to Romans 1 - which is part of a general narrative of the condemnation of a persons and uses homosexuality in the context of Gentile religious festivals (and that's by no means an eccentric view, for it's found in many standard, very conservative, commentaries) - and you can't appeal to Leviticus or Genesis by your own admission. Oops.

B. Unlike you, where I can and have documented your lies and errors, you simply point to the sins of others to deflect attention away from yourself - just like the Pharisee. Oh, and by the way, we're still waiting for that exegesis of Romans 13 on taxes.

 

[Amaris]

Be careful, J.

You'll make his head explode. And TNZ is just clean out of Windex.

That's the problem. It's like no thought is actually given to understanding these passages in relation to, you know, the guy that actually started the whole thing.

Jesus talks about love, compassion, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, giving alms to the poor; all things that require the opening of the human heart.

Paul eschews all of this in favor of legalistic, complex rules and regulations, removing the heart from the faith and establishing an organization instead.

Jesus speaks as a wandering traveler.

Paul speaks in crowded stadiums and ampitheatres to packed houses.

There's just this strong disconnect there that many Christians don't seem to notice or care to notice.

 

[Knight Templar]

For example?

Example 1

JESUS: "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark 2:15-17

PAUL: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1st Corinthians 5:11

Example 2

JESUS: "The apostles gathered themselves together to Jesus, and they told him all things, whatever they had done, and whatever they had taught. He said to them, "You come apart into a deserted place, and rest awhile." For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.

They went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. They saw them going, and many recognized him and ran there on foot from all the cities. They arrived before them and came together to him. Jesus came out, saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things. When it was late in the day, his disciples came to him, and said, "This place is deserted, and it is late in the day. Send them away, that they may go into the surrounding country and villages, and buy themselves bread, for they have nothing to eat."

But he answered them, "You give them something to eat."
They asked him, "Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give them something to eat?"
He said to them, "How many loaves do you have? Go see."

When they knew, they said, "Five, and two fish."
He commanded them that everyone should sit down in groups on the green grass. They sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties. He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke the loaves, and he gave to his disciples to set before them, and he divided the two fish among them all. They all ate, and were filled. They took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and also of the fish. Those who ate the loaves were five thousand men." Mark 6:30-44

PAUL: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." 2nd Thessalonians 3:10


There are many more such examples, but I think two are enough, for the moment, to establish that Paul wasn't operating within the holy authority that he so claimed.

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.

So what you're saying is that if a man says he was abducted by aliens, and his two friends agree with him because they say they saw it all happen, and that there were no other witnesses, then the man is automatically telling the truth and his words given authoritative merit?

In example one, Jesus by making the "physician" reference is clearly intending that Christians should go among and engage sinners in order to convert them from their sinful ways.

Paul by contrast is denouncing "keeping company" with sinners is clearly indicating that a person should not deliberately associating with them WITOUT that desire to convert them. That is simply being friends with sinners for the sake of enjoying their company, that is bringing pleasure to yourself.

Massive difference.

In example two, Jesus is providing for those who have expressly come to hear his words and preaching.

While Paul is clearly condemning those who hunger simply for being too lazy to work.

 

[RandyS]

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?

Because, as I said, his opinion is just that: his OPINION. Just as mine is. Just as yours is. I may not agree with him, but he has a right to his views, just as we have the right to ours. This is America. The land of the free.

At least, it used to be.

I find it ironic that people today with their "all inclusive" viewpoint have become so intolerant that they have forgotten that.

 

[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".

Wrong. Justification by faith alone is a falth that works; it's a species of Sola Gratia. It isn't antinomian. To characterize it otherwise is to lie. The fact that James uses the word "justify" doesn't mean the epistle is articulating a theology of justification. That commits two semantic fallacies.

a. Semantic Incest: This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.

b. Semantic Inflation:The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word.

For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.

Your faith is in a work-baptism, a form of circumcision. Not baptized as a believer = not a Christian. Remission of sins cannot be enjoyed by any person before immersion,” in Christian Baptism, page 531; “Immersion is the converting act . . . immersion and regeneration are two Bible names for the same act,” in Harbinger Extra; F.D. Kershner writing for the Disciples of Christ echoing Campbell: “Baptism by immersion is an act of obedience to Christ, and as such is necessary for the remission of sins and salvation,” cited in F.E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America, page 384

Faith in Christ alone - not enough. That's a direct contradiction to Romans and Galatians. You assess the validity of others' faith in terms of membership in your religious sect. That's the very definition of ecclesiolatry.

You lie with impunity; your faith is merit based on baptism and it's divided (not in Christ's merits alone), and you're an ecclesiolater.

Now, this is the part where you point your fingers and say "But you're gay" and accuse me of antinomianism.

A. That begs the question with respect to Romans 1 - which is part of a general narrative of the condemnation of a persons and uses homosexuality in the context of Gentile religious festivals (and that's by no means an eccentric view, for it's found in many standard, very conservative, commentaries) - and you can't appeal to Leviticus or Genesis by your own admission. Oops.

B. Unlike you, where I can and have documented your lies and errors, you simply point to the sins of others to deflect attention away from yourself - just like the Pharisee. Oh, and by the way, we're still waiting for that exegesis of Romans 13 on taxes.

Wrong on all counts.

I've never disputed that a person is obligated to pay taxes to the govt. according to civil laws.

 

[nightwind1]

For example?

Example 1

JESUS: "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark 2:15-17

PAUL: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1st Corinthians 5:11

Example 2

JESUS: "The apostles gathered themselves together to Jesus, and they told him all things, whatever they had done, and whatever they had taught. He said to them, "You come apart into a deserted place, and rest awhile." For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.

They went away in the boat to a deserted place by themselves. They saw them going, and many recognized him and ran there on foot from all the cities. They arrived before them and came together to him. Jesus came out, saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things. When it was late in the day, his disciples came to him, and said, "This place is deserted, and it is late in the day. Send them away, that they may go into the surrounding country and villages, and buy themselves bread, for they have nothing to eat."

But he answered them, "You give them something to eat."
They asked him, "Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give them something to eat?"
He said to them, "How many loaves do you have? Go see."

When they knew, they said, "Five, and two fish."
He commanded them that everyone should sit down in groups on the green grass. They sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties. He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke the loaves, and he gave to his disciples to set before them, and he divided the two fish among them all. They all ate, and were filled. They took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and also of the fish. Those who ate the loaves were five thousand men." Mark 6:30-44

PAUL: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." 2nd Thessalonians 3:10


There are many more such examples, but I think two are enough, for the moment, to establish that Paul wasn't operating within the holy authority that he so claimed.

 

[nightwind1]

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?

Because, as I said, his opinion is just that: his OPINION. Just as mine is. Just as yours is. I may not agree with him, but he has a right to his views, just as we have the right to ours. This is America. The land of the free.

At least, it used to be.

I find it ironic that people today with their "all inclusive" viewpoint have become so intolerant that they have forgotten that.

No, that's fine.

If YOU are okay with YOUR money going to support anti-civil rights hate groups, that's YOUR choice.

 

[Silvercrest]

This!

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.

I'd say it's not particularly helpful to women.

My pastor is a woman. Our church recognizes that she's inspired by God. And as an ordained spiritual leader, she has spiritual authority over me. Deal with it.

I am a Christian. My place is to love and support others. Not to judge them. Not to condemn them because they're gay. Not to declare that any particular person or group is going to hell (whatever that is). Not to declare that I'm part of any chosen few. Anyone who makes those kinds of judgement is taking on authority that he doesn't have.

And it's my faith in God that has me finding the attitude of various posters here disgusting, aborhent, un-Christian, and sinful.

Right there with ya, nightwind1.

Before anyone calls out this attitude as sanctimonious or judgemental: it is not. I am a sinner and I'm trying to deal with that. And I'm not superior to any other sinners. We're all wallowing in the same mud pit. It's just that some don't know it.

 

[Balrog]

Whelp, I know I'm off chicken for a while thanks to this thread. Now when I think of chicken I'll think... prison rape?! Yeah, thanks.

Anybody have a problem with cheeseburgers I should know about?

 

[cooleddie74]

Mayor McCheese is into autoerotic asphyxiation. And likes to kill drifters.

But other than that...can't think of anything.

 

[Silvercrest]

Whelp, I know I'm off chicken for a while thanks to this thread. Now when I think of chicken I'll think... prison rape?! Yeah, thanks.

Mission accomplished!

Anybody have a problem with cheeseburgers I should know about?

Well, the cows do.

 

[Amaris]

In example one, Jesus by making the "physician" reference is clearly intending that Christians should go among and engage sinners in order to convert them from their sinful ways.

Paul by contrast is denouncing "keeping company" with sinners is clearly indicating that a person should not deliberately associating with them WITOUT that desire to convert them. That is simply being friends with sinners for the sake of enjoying their company, that is bringing pleasure to yourself.

Massive difference.

In example two, Jesus is providing for those who have expressly come to hear his words and preaching.

While Paul is clearly condemning those who hunger simply for being too lazy to work.

Sorry, kiddo, Jesus made no such distinction.

 

[boobatuba]

I think it's important to understand what this company stands for. Look at this list of anti-gay groups that WinShape (the parent company of Chick-fil-A) has donated to. Pretty staggering, and more complete than warriorfan's post earlier in the thread.

 

[cooleddie74]

Yes. Because it's so compassionate and Christian in spirit to let people "too lazy to work" suffer from hunger.

The right-wing fundamenalist view of the poor makes more sense when you realize it's not Jesus they often listen to, but guys like Paul.

 

[Amaris]

Yes. Because it's so compassionate and Christian in spirit to let people "too lazy to work" suffer from hunger.

The right-wing fundamenalist view of the poor makes more sense when you realize it's not Jesus they often listen to, but guys like Paul.

Look at much of the modern church and the teachings of Paul, and you'll see an ideological twin. Complex legal regulations, condemnation of those who are different from the body, promotion of self and the Church in the name of God. The discrimination against the minority and the oppressed; the exploitation of the poor. All of this can be gleaned from Paul's writings, and slapped on the bulletin board of any church and get a hearty call of "Amen".

 

[Peacemaker]

Yes. Because it's so compassionate and Christian in spirit to let people "too lazy to work" suffer from hunger.

The right-wing fundamenalist view of the poor makes more sense when ou realize it's not Jesus they often listen to, but guys like Paul.

And here's real irony for you...Paul talks, in several letters, about an offering he was taking up for the Jerusalem church and for which he was sending out folks to help collect it. It was going to be used for helping the poor, the orphan, and the widow. It was being taken up, and, at the same time, he was teaching people to pay their taxes to Rome, ruled by Nero, no matter how high those taxes or odious they felt them to be (Romans 13). And, while KT lies and says I disaffirm James 2, he not only defies Romans 13 as I have demonstrated elsewhere and to which he has never responded to me, he seems to defy James 1:27 and 2:1-6 in the way he speaks of them and those of us who feel differently than he does about helping them.

KT, quick to point out the sins of others - not so astute when it comes to the same texts - which was my point earlier. People like KT are a dime a dozen in evangelical churches these days. They like to point out others sins and ignore their own. They'll give here and there to the offering plate, and some, yes, do a lot to help (the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention does do a lot, and I think others give it short shrift), but they're quick to pass a petition or organize a vote to oppose gay marriage, but they do nothing to share the Gospel with a gay person one-on-one; they do nothing to help the poor and hungry where they live. You know, where I live in NC, there's a church on every corner, almost literally, but we're classed as one of the worst places for hungry, working poor people in the whole country, and when we bring this up, most of those people, and I will caveat this - most of them come from the largest Baptist churches and the independent Baptist churches - cry about how high their taxes are and that helping the hungry is somethin' liberal churches do because they believe in "the social gospel."

Don't get me started on Romney and that "ten percent" comment Anne made a few weeks ago. Yeah, he gives ten percent to his church - but in Mormonism that's just the bare minimum to get by so he doesn't get kicked out of the first level of the Celestial Kingdom.

While Paul is clearly condemning those who hunger simply for being too lazy to work.

In context, of course, he's talking about the disorderly within the local church, not those in society as a whole. But, hey, what's context when you've got a political agenda to push?

 

[1001001]

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.

I think you misunderstood me?

I said I would not eat there, and that people who get all worked up about gay marriage (who cares?) puzzle me.