Huckabee creates Chick-fil-a appreciation day - NSFW

[heinz57]

Here's a very good article that mostly covers Shellfish but also relates other old testament laws and how they are different than homosexuality.

http://americanvision.org/3112/shellfish-logic-and-the-defense-of-homosexual-marriage/#.UBbf9mEfSSo

Seriously, that's the most compelling thing you found on the subject? Well, I call BS.

First, sexual relationships are defined in the earliest chapters of Genesis. Adam’s solitude was remedied with the creation of Eve, a female, someone designed specifically for him (Gen. 2:18–25).

Even if you take the Bible literally, it refers to reproduction, not sexual relations. Second, it's hard to take the Bible that literally, when you then read that Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth, they had two sons, one killed the other, and then suddenly (Gen 4.17) Cain has a son with his wife. So if you take the Bible literally, there were 3 people on the planet at this point, and Cain had no choice but to copulate with his mother (which I believe you'd condemn, as does Lev 20:10-12). You can INTERPRET that Adam and Eve had some unmentioned daughters and Cain had children with one of them (also wouldn't sound great, for the same reason). Or you can INTERPRET that there were other, unrelated people on the planet, which would then contradict what precedes.

The physical side of homosexual is unnatural, like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

The author clearly has a square penis. If he refers to anal sex, I'd say it's very much inserting a round peg into a round hole. He also completely ignores the fact anal sex and homosexuality are two very different notions, and that plenty of heterosexual couples enjoy anal sex, and the mechanics are still the same.

Jesus confirms this in Matthew 19:4–6: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ‘So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate’†(also see Eph. 5:25–33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:2–3, 10–16; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). There is no homosexual option. Jesus does not go to Leviticus to make His case; He goes back to Genesis.

This one is kind of *duh*, because this is his answer to a question (Matthew 19:3) about whether it's ok to divorce for just any reason. If he referred to Leviticus he'd be off topic.

Third, Leviticus, in addition to prohibiting homosexual relationships (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), also prohibits eating certain foods (Lev. 11:2–31). Unlike homosexuality, there are no civil penalties attached to eating from the prohibited food list.

True, but the term used is the same ("abomination"). However the punishment for homosexual relationships is EXACTLY the same as for working on a Saturday, and reading horoscopes...

With the coming of Jesus, the Second Adam, we are back to the creation ordinances where all foods are once again “clean†because the gospel is for the world (John 4:42; Acts 1:8) (...) Other passages address the same issue (Rom. 14:2-3, 6, 14-23 and Col. 2:16-23). Why are once prohibited foods now considered “clean�

Really? Because in Matt 5:17 Jesus clearly states “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.†Doesn't sound like he intended to lift all these prohibitions. All the cited references are Paul', who didn't know Jesus, didn't know first hand what Jesus thought of these matters. We know however that Paul's views and politics didn't fly well with the original Apostles (as evidenced in Acts and Galatians). As for the quote from John, it has nothing to do with food at all (see, I even found the KJV for you: "And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." - No food!)

Homosexuality is a teeny-tiny subject in the whole corpus of the OT. It appears NOWHERE in the Evangiles. The one guy who is rambling about it is Paul, and he is against heterosexual sex as well, seeing it merely as a lesser evil. It's also worth mentioning that it's regularly thought Paul was homosexual himself and had a hard time fighting those urges (2 Cor 12:7-8, for example. I can develop if you wish).

So yeah, I call bullshit.

Sorry for the tardy reply, but I went into trouble to look into the arguments (contrary to you). But hey, at least I ANSWERED, you didn't have to insist 3 times.

[Witsec7]

Pope Cathy is pimping out unhealthy food. I'm sure in the eyes of xtians like jericho that's a good thing.

[formergothardite]

Because that warning would be a lie. There is nothing in the bible that says how many calories you are to eat. Gluttony is the long term practice of over-eating. One meal is not gluttony. You act as if any place that does not specialize in the utmost healthiest food are heathens.

No gluttony would be eating a meal that is close to 2000 calories. Unless you are an athlete or only eating low calorie foods, then you will be eating more than you need which is gluttony. If I sit down and eat a carton of ice cream, I will be being a glutton. Same if I go eat one of the advertised, put together meals that Chick-fil-a sells.

Chick-fil-a if they cared more about the Bible than money would put together meals that discourage eating more calories than you need and make it clear that if you eat certain foods together you will be eating almost as many calories as you need in one day, which is gluttony and not part of a biblical lifestyle. But I suspect their love the for following the Bible ends where their pocket book begins.

[jericho]

No, gluttony is "consumption of food or drink to the point of extravagance or waste". It means eating more than you need, whether once or all the time. Every meal on the Chik-Fil-A menu is an invitation to gluttony. No one needs 1000 calories in a meal, so the extra are extravagance and waste.

Your last sentence is totally an opinion and a weak one at that.

[mirele]

If you had read the entire interview with Dan Cathy that caused so much outrage you would see that he said "Chick Fil-A is not a Christian Business". Yes he said that.

Second, Chick Fil-A is in business for profit. They are in competition with other fast food restaurants chains. Their food is no more unhealthy than other similar restaurants. Their service, facilities, and food quality is by far better than most fast food however. Nobody is making you eat Chick Fil-A 3 times a day. It's not their responsibility to hold your hand and feed you (or not).

First: If you visit Chick-fil-A's Facebook page, it is filled with posts from CfA fanbois and fangirls that totally belie what Dan Cathy says here. *He* may say that CfA isn't a Christian organization, but that's not how his fans see it.

Second: I agree that CfA is in business for profit. I'd also remind you that as a privately-held corporation (i.e., not publicly traded on a stock exchange), Chick-fil-A made a CORPORATE decision to fund anti-gay organizations. This is NOT Dan Cathy giving money out of his personal accounts. No, it's the CORPORATION giving money to stop gay marriage.

It was always within my rights to never eat at CfA, but really...if the CORPORATE policy is to support anti-gay measures, then why do you have a problem with me saying so? (It's also why I won't give money to the Salvation Army, because they have actively worked against GLBT persons in the recent past and have not repented.)

[jericho]

They have fired employees for refusing to pray on the job.

Where is this documented?

[jericho]

First: If you visit Chick-fil-A's Facebook page, it is filled with posts from CfA fanbois and fangirls that totally belie what Dan Cathy says here. *He* may say that CfA isn't a Christian organization, but that's not how his fans see it.

Second: I agree that CfA is in business for profit. I'd also remind you that as a privately-held corporation (i.e., not publicly traded on a stock exchange), Chick-fil-A made a CORPORATE decision to fund anti-gay organizations. This is NOT Dan Cathy giving money out of his personal accounts. No, it's the CORPORATION giving money to stop gay marriage.

It was always within my rights to never eat at CfA, but really...if the CORPORATE policy is to support anti-gay measures, then why do you have a problem with me saying so? (It's also why I won't give money to the Salvation Army, because they have actively worked against GLBT persons in the recent past and have not repented.)

It is absolutely within your rights and I don't have any problem with you not going to Chick Fil-A or Salvation Army. That was never a debate for me.

[formergothardite]

I fail to see a valid comparison.

Because Chick-fil-a does the same with high calorie, bump you up into eating more calories and food than you need meals. Hey, you don't have to buy the fried chicken and waffle fries and soft drinks they sell healthy stuff too, but their combo meals that people are more likely to buy are the ones that are more likely to turn you into gluttons by having you eat more calories than you need.

[Guest Anonymous]

jericho,

Do you think that all of us should go post our pro-LGBTQ views on fundamentalist Christian forums the way you are posting yours here? Would that be healthy and productive, or useless trolling?

[mirele]

Who said it affected my life? I just believe in the bible and stand up for what God says.

Actually, no, you don't believe in the Bible.

You believe in what you've picked and chosen from the Bible, as guided by how you were brought up and what you hear over the pulpit in church, what books you read, etc.

The Bible is a huge compendium of documents over a long period of time, and it has contradictions galore (not going to give them here, you can suss it out on the Web if you're interested). Some Christians call that the "Law being superseded by the Gospel" as a way of explaining it. But the fact is, you DO NOT live by everything God has given.

Just think, jericho, every time you bite into a crunchy, yummy BLT, you're breaking God's law. You know that, right? (Wow, I want a BLT right now. I need to stop.)

[Guest Anonymous]

Actually, no, you don't believe in the Bible.

You believe in what you've picked and chosen from the Bible, as guided by how you were brought up and what you hear over the pulpit in church, what books you read, etc.

The Bible is a huge compendium of documents over a long period of time, and it has contradictions galore (not going to give them here, you can suss it out on the Web if you're interested). Some Christians call that the "Law being superseded by the Gospel" as a way of explaining it. But the fact is, you DO NOT live by everything God has given.

Just think, jericho, every time you bite into a crunchy, yummy BLT, you're breaking God's law. You know that, right? (Wow, I want a BLT right now. I need to stop.)

RB3g6mXLEKk

Care to explain these, jericho? Particularly the one in which the penalty for the same crime is sometimes listed as exile and sometimes listed as death. Are we tossing people out of the city or stoning them to death? How do we decide?

[Witsec7]

jericho,

Do you think that all of us should go post our pro-LGBTQ views on fundamentalist Christian forums the way you are posting yours here? Would that be healthy and productive, or useless trolling?

They would never see the light of day on a xtian forum. Unlike FJ those places don't believe in freedom of speech.

[JenniferJuniper]

Just quoting their President. They don't hide that their owners are Christians, but they sure don't throw it in your face everywhere.

You're a clown.

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005#1

Investigation Reveals Depth of Chick-Fil-A's Ties to Anti-Gay Causes

Highlights include:

1. Winshape (Chick-Fil-A's charitable arm): Over $1.1M Given To Anti-Gay Groups

2. Chick-Fil-A Reportedly Favors Married Employees, Investigates Their Personal Lives

3. Chick-Fil-A's Partnership With Focus On The Family

4. Chick-Fil-A's Sponsorship Of Anti-Gay Hate Group Affiliate

5. WinShape's "Traditional Marriage Only" Activities

[Maul the Koala]

WTF. I believe you, but dang, how have the not been sued out of business?

The Muslim employee sued and settled for an undisclosed amount.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

There are other lawsuits. By the time I get back I assume someone will have posted them or this thought will be completely gone.

[Visionoyahweh]

Needs more gay diner kisses.

[Witsec7]

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

[Visionoyahweh]

The Muslim employee sued and settled for an undisclosed amount.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

There are other lawsuits. By the time I get back I assume someone will have posted them or this thought will be completely gone.

Thank you.

[Guest Anonymous]

They would never see the light of day on a xtian forum. Unlike FJ those places don't believe in freedom of speech.

Word, experiencedd. We'd be banned and our posts deleted in a hot second. In theory, though.

[Sola]

Jericho, from the link you posted earlier;

The physical side of homosexual is unnatural, like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

If that is so, then could you please explain why the male G-spot is found inside the anus? The only way to stimulate it is to insert something - a finger, a penis, a dildo etc - into the anus. If homosexual sex in men is unnatural, why isn't the male G-spot at the end of the penis?

It's almost as though.... just maybe.... 'God' placed it there on a purpose....

[Sola]

Word, experiencedd. We'd be banned and our posts deleted in a hot second. In theory, though.

Yep, like on Rapture Ready, I got booted off there a few years ago for providing another point of view with regards to the Leviticus verses.

Such bastions of free speech there.

[emmiedahl]

I admit to occasional trolling on sites where no one agrees with me. Usually my comments are reported and deleted. Generally I do this when the insanity and mistruth just get to me.

It is really hard when I know and am related to a few awesome gay families with great parents and kids. I read some of the vitriol written about them and just cannot help myself. The lesbian-headed family I am most closely related to includes two very religious women who own a home and have been in a committed relationship for more than two decades. Not only are they well-educated, upper middle class (insert other traditional measure of stability here and they have it!) they are some of the kindest people I know and give back to their community whenever there is an opportunity. We need more families like that. Jericho can suck it; I have the moral right to not buy chicken from some asshole who wishes we had a Biblical nation so he could stone them.

[Witsec7]

My DD's fairy goddess mothers are two very wealthy lesbians who have raised a lovely daughter. They have been together for almost 40 years. Their nationally known restaurant chains are not known for their lesbian owners. Employees, all receive benefits, medical, retirement, paid family leave and they contribute millions privately to LGBT issues as well as to college scholarships for their employees and families.

[jericho]

Actually, no, you don't believe in the Bible.

You believe in what you've picked and chosen from the Bible, as guided by how you were brought up and what you hear over the pulpit in church, what books you read, etc.

The Bible is a huge compendium of documents over a long period of time, and it has contradictions galore (not going to give them here, you can suss it out on the Web if you're interested). Some Christians call that the "Law being superseded by the Gospel" as a way of explaining it. But the fact is, you DO NOT live by everything God has given.

Just think, jericho, every time you bite into a crunchy, yummy BLT, you're breaking God's law. You know that, right? (Wow, I want a BLT right now. I need to stop.)

Wrong. Nothing wrong with eating a BLT on occasion. What law am I breaking? Not gluttony, my wife makes sure of that (she's on a alternative health non GMO organic kick)

As for the rest of your statements about the Bible, study up more about those contradictions galore. And you have no idea how I was raised and what I heard from the pulpit.

[mirele]

You know this is working out well for Chick-fil-A when the Berenstain family comes out and say that they have no control over the use of their Berenstain Bears characters in an August Chick-fil-A promotion.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ch ... 7/30/45142

This is PARTICULARLY interesting when you consider that one of the Berenstain sons is a born-again Christian and some of the newer books are directed towards that audience.

One of my waggish friends said the book to be included in the August promotion should be called: "Heather has Two Mommy Bears, And They're Both Going To Burn In Hell". (It's actually something else.)

ETA: I do know my verb tenses, but tend to lose them when I get excited.

[Witsec7]

she's on a alternative health non GMO organic kick

Talk about minimizing the wifey's commitment to the good health of her family and community. I'm sure that phrase comes with a head or fanny pat.