Toggle sidebar

Chik-Fil-A Thread

92tide said:
my point is, everyone's interpretation of the Bible for as long as the Bible has been in existence, is cherry picked.
Click to expand...

As we are all mortal and finite beings, everyone's understanding of infinite wisdom is necessarily limited. Having limited understanding, however, isn't quite the same as intentionally cherry picking. Both instances exist, but there is a definite difference.
 
skrayper77 said:
Actually, THAT type of sword was the small ones used by the people of the area to fend off wild creatures - not weapons of war.

As for cherry picking, I'm referring to Jesus' stance on war and killing. Does the New Testament NOT overturn several things in the Old? I'm pretty sure the idea of being a Christian hinges on that belief.
Click to expand...

So Jesus told his disciples to carry a dagger because he was afraid of the sudden rash of wild boar attacks that was about to come about? Or was it because Jesus knew what the political and social environment was progressing to as His time came to an end? Which one do you think it was. Wild boar attacks or putting a dagger in someone's chest who was trying to kill them?

The old testament wasn't ABOLISHED (<----Jesus said this BTW) but fulfilled in two ways specifically. The sacrificial system the old testament believers were under was fulfilled by Jesus. He was the final "sacrifice" and no other sacrifices for atonement of sin before God was needed. Jesus specifically said He did not come to abolish the old law but to fulfill.

Secondly from a moral standpoint, love fulfills the old testament rules. Loving your neighbor as yourself meant you by default are fulfilling the old testament law. For example, if I loved my neighbor as myself and if treated my neighbor as I wanted to be treated then I wouldn't need a "law" or "rule" that tells me not to steal his mule. Love fulfills (not abolishes) the old testament law.
 
skrayper77 said:
Actually, THAT type of sword was the small ones used by the people of the area to fend off wild creatures - not weapons of war.

As for cherry picking, I'm referring to Jesus' stance on war and killing. Does the New Testament NOT overturn several things in the Old? I'm pretty sure the idea of being a Christian hinges on that belief.
Click to expand...

Paul makes it pretty clear in Galations that we are not to follow the law of the Old Testament anymore, in any way. He goes so far as to say that it was "nailed to the cross" when Christ died. And that is pretty damning. Under the law, dying by the cross was seen as the ultimate sinful death. It was, in essence, the worst way to go from a spiritual stand point. Not only did Jesus himself go that way, but he took the law with him. At least, that's how I interpret Paul's writings in Galations.

Again, I go back to the point, love not sin. Love, not law. Certainly just my opinion.
 
bamachile said:
As we are all mortal and finite beings, everyone's understanding of infinite wisdom is necessarily limited. Having limited understanding, however, isn't quite the same as intentionally cherry picking. Both instances exist, but there is a definite difference.
Click to expand...

that difference almost always boils down to "my understanding is limited, your's is cherry picking"
 
TideEngineer08 said:
Paul makes it pretty clear in Galations that we are not to follow the law of the Old Testament anymore, in any way. He goes so far as to say that it was "nailed to the cross" when Christ died. And that is pretty damning. Under the law, dying by the cross was seen as the ultimate sinful death. It was, in essence, the worst way to go from a spiritual stand point. Not only did Jesus himself go that way, but he took the law with him. At least, that's how I interpret Paul's writings in Galations.

Again, I go back to the point, love not sin. Love, not law. Certainly just my opinion.
Click to expand...

so we should ignore those who use Leviticus against homosexuals?

I mean I do anyway but officially is this what Christians are supposed to do? I have never understood this
 
skrayper77 said:
You're not allowed to cherry pick the rules you'll follow. I'm pretty certain someone mentioned something to me earlier about cherry picking... ;p

I tease, but I am actually quite serious. That said, you're still referring to soldiers acting on orders from GOD - not the orders of a Country. There's a difference between Jesus or God coming to me and saying, "Go fight these guys and don't feel bad about it" and Barak Obama or George Bush telling me the same thing.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying regarding how the individual is held accountable for things his nation tells him to do. We've had some very tough discussions about this very topic in our Wednesday nights. We've got two men who have been to and from overseas twice. One has killed several people from a tank gun. He said he struggles with that. But he said if he hadn't they would have killed him. He said he often wonders did he "sin" by doing that.

In studying the bible it seems there are principles specifically for nations, governments, families and individuals that run throughout the old and new testament. Is the topic of "Can a Christian serve in the military of his country" specifically addressed? No, but the Bible does say government (it's structure mind you and its existence) was established by God.

Romans 13:1-7 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due
Click to expand...

What I meant by "cherry picking" is taking a verse in and of itself to cover an entire principle without cross referencing to other parts of the Bible before coming to that conclusion. If you did that BEFORE quoting those verses then I apologize. If you didn't then STOP CHERRY PICKIN'!!! :smile: :wink:
 
Last edited:
TideEngineer08 said:
Paul makes it pretty clear in Galations that we are not to follow the law of the Old Testament anymore, in any way. He goes so far as to say that it was "nailed to the cross" when Christ died. And that is pretty damning. Under the law, dying by the cross was seen as the ultimate sinful death. It was, in essence, the worst way to go from a spiritual stand point. Not only did Jesus himself go that way, but he took the law with him. At least, that's how I interpret Paul's writings in Galations.

Again, I go back to the point, love not sin. Love, not law. Certainly just my opinion.
Click to expand...

He said this because the Christian Jews were continue to want to follow the old sacrificial system which was no good to them anymore. In essence saying "Jesus wasn't who He said He was and His sacrifice wasn't enough." That is what infuriated Paul so much and he was urgently warning them to do not do this because they would turning away. This same message was in the book of Hebrews. The Jewish Christians were struggling mightily to let go of the old testament sacrifical system.
 
Bamabuzzard said:
I know what you're saying regarding how the individual is held accountable for things his nation tells him to do. We've had some very tough discussions about this very topic in our Wednesday nights. We've got two men who have been to and from overseas twice. One has killed several people from a tank gun. He said he struggles with that. But he said if he hadn't they would have killed him. He said he often wonders did he "sin" by doing that.

In studying the bible it seems there are principles specifically for nations, governments, families and individuals that run throughout the old and new testament. Is the topic of "Can a Christian serve in the military of his country" specifically addressed? No, but the Bible does say government (it's structure mind you and its existence) was established by God.



What I meant by "cherry picking" is taking a verse in and of itself to cover an entire principle without cross referencing to other parts of the Bible before coming to that conclusion. If you did that BEFORE quoting those verses then I apologize. If you didn't then STOP CHERRY PICKIN'!!! :smile: :wink:
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, then, doesn't that mean that we cannot go into other countries and remove evil men? They are the authority, and they are there by God's will. That's where a full acceptance of that passage becomes sticky - it means that the guards who turned on the gas chambers at concentration camps aren't accountable. It means Sadam's men weren't accountable, and it also means it was never our place to go in there as we are directly disputing the authority granted them by God Himself.

There is no caveat given for democratic authority - it applies to Emperors, Dictators, Kings, Communist Regimes - the implication is that no one would have political power unless it was God's divine will.

To me, that's a dangerous assumption to make - and, by definition, nullifies the birth of our nation (we went against the authority of England).
 
Adam Smith fired after hassling Chick-Fil-A employee

Video: Adam Smith fired after hassling Chick-Fil-A employee on company's anti-gay marriage stance​
  • By: Kristal Roberts
Click to expand...
Chick-Fil A has received a mixed bag of praises and protests since the company’s Southern Baptist president, Dan Cathy, confirmed that he doesn’t support gay marriage.

But one man protesting the restaurant for being ‘hateful’ got fired after he posted a YouTube video of himself berating a young female Chick-Fil-A employee for working at a ‘horrible’ company, Huffington Post reports.

(See video below or click here: http://youtu.be/Jg-jzlWcc0E )

Adam Smith, the former CFO of Vante Inc., appeared to be in a good mood as he waited in a Chick-Fil-A drive-thru line in Tucson, Ariz. to get a free cup of water and give the company a piece of his mind on August 1.

When he got to the window, he launched into a tirade, recording an employee with a camera as he told her that Chick-Fil-A was hateful.

"... the corporation gives money to hate groups. Hate groups. Just because people want to kiss another guy," Smith said. "I don't believe corporations should be giving money to hateful groups.. I'll take my water," he continued.
She remained calm, said they didn’t treat any of their customers differently and said wanted to stay neutral on the subject. ​
Click to expand...
 
skrayper77 said:
Interestingly enough, then, doesn't that mean that we cannot go into other countries and remove evil men? They are the authority, and they are there by God's will. That's where a full acceptance of that passage becomes sticky - it means that the guards who turned on the gas chambers at concentration camps aren't accountable. It means Sadam's men weren't accountable, and it also means it was never our place to go in there as we are directly disputing the authority granted them by God Himself.

There is no caveat given for democratic authority - it applies to Emperors, Dictators, Kings, Communist Regimes - the implication is that no one would have political power unless it was God's divine will.

To me, that's a dangerous assumption to make - and, by definition, nullifies the birth of our nation (we went against the authority of England).
Click to expand...

You got that right. Sticky is putting it mildly. I don't have all the answers. I wish I did. I do my best to study the Bible, its history, the culture at that time, and prepare myself the best I can to be able to give a reason/"defense" as to why I believe the way I believe. But in the end I have to understand that the Bible's primary theme is salvation for eternity and the way to that salvation. Though it does give specifics about certain things and other things it simply does not. It lays down principles as the only way to address many of the things that aren't specifically mentioned.

In my personal opinion I think many people (both Christians and non-Christians who like to use the Bible to debate Christians) use the silence of the Bible on a certain topic as a platform to say that means the Bible condones something. I tell people that when the Bible doesn't specifically address something then you have to move to principles that are commonly taught throughout the Bible to put it up against before deciding whether it is "right" or "wrong".
 
Last edited:
Bamabuzzard said:
He said this because the Christian Jews were continue to want to follow the old sacrificial system which was no good to them anymore. In essence saying "Jesus wasn't who He said He was and His sacrifice wasn't enough." That is what infuriated Paul so much and he was urgently warning them to do not do this because they would turning away. This same message was in the book of Hebrews. The Jewish Christians were struggling mightily to let go of the old testament sacrifical system.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just sacrificing. It was keeping the list of rules and regulations. Paul pretty clearly stated that any attempt to go back under the law, was to say that Jesus wasn't enough, that something had to be added to it. Again... how I interpret it.
 
TideEngineer08 said:
It wasn't just sacrificing. It was keeping the list of rules and regulations. Paul pretty clearly stated that any attempt to go back under the law, was to say that Jesus wasn't enough, that something had to be added to it. Again... how I interpret it.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I agree. I'm not disagreeing. Paul is saying the "law" has been fulfilled with regard to the sacrificial system AND practicing the "love" Jesus was talking about in our day to day lives we would (by default) be fulfilling any moral obligation under the old law. That is why Jesus made it a point to say he didn't come to ABOLISH the old law but to FULFILL it. "Love" and the practice of it fulfills the old law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back