Chik-Fil-A Thread

Some passages that have been used for slavery & the subjugation of women:
[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: source"]Ephesians 5:22-24
[/TD]
[TD="class: quote"]Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband
is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which
he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should
submit to their husbands in everything.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: source"]Exodus 21:20-21
[/TD]
[TD="class: quote"]If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave
dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if
the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: source"]1 Peter 2:13
[/TD]
[TD="class: quote"]Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority
instituted among men.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: source"]2:18
[/TD]
[TD="class: quote"]Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not
only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are
harsh.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: quote"]
Leviticus 25:44-45​
[/TD]
[TD="class: quote"]Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around
you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary
residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and
they will become your property.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


I think there are plenty of other references in the Bible that are an affront to our natural understandings of right & wrong:

In the Bible's book of Deuteronomy it says that if a man marries a woman and then decides that he hates her, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they married. At that point her father must prove she was a virgin. (How is not explained.) If he can't, then the girl is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.

In Leviticus, both an adulterer and adulteress, as well as someone who curses either parent, must be put to death.

If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deuteronomy)

In Exodus, we see that it is permissible to sell one's daughter (but apparently not one's son) into slavery. Also in Exodus (35:2), whoever does any work on the seventh day must be put to death.

Under God's direction, Moses' army kills all the adult males, but they mercifully just take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some women and children alive, he angrily says: "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Throughout Bible history God is said to demand that thousands, if not millions, of men, women and children be slaughtered. And they are.

A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders. (Deuteronomy 25:5-9) And in case you are Jewish, you may be familiar with the Jewish prayer: "Blessed be the God who has not created me a heathen, a slave or a woman."

Again, what differentiates the validity of the above passages with those purportedly condemning homosexuality or prohibiting their ability to marry?


I probably don't understand what you're asking, but the difference seems simple to me:

+ God neither prohibits nor commands slavery. Clearly, one could assume that it's acceptable to own slaves (assuming they are treated with Christian love), and one could assume that it's equally acceptable not to own slaves.

+ God expressly condemns homosexuality.
 
I believe Paul eventually gets to this in Romans 7 see verse 7 and further.


Yes, it appears so:

12.So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13.Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
 
Re: The Civil Rights Agenda files complaints against Chick-fil-A

Well, went to Chik-fil-a today and was disappointed at the lack of protester turnout. These guys need to wear rainbow buttons or something cuz if they were in there nobody knew about it. :(


That has got to be the stupidest standing for a lawsuit I have ever heard. If it doesn't get thrown out I will be surprised. Well maybe not, but I will roll my eyes, fo sho. Now let me go file a lawsuit against Joe Biden for hurting the feelings of handicapped people everywhere.
 
Company CEO films as he berates the drive-through employee at an Arizona Chick fil-A. He loses his job after he posts the video. Not sure what outcome he expected with his display, but the drive-through employee handled the incident with courtesy and dignity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chick-fil-a-20120803,0,2409892.story


Thankfully he has was fired. The company that he used to work for expressed their values was respect for everyone's opinion.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vant...worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8
 
I probably don't understand what you're asking, but the difference seems simple to me:

+ God neither prohibits nor commands slavery. Clearly, one could assume that it's acceptable to own slaves (assuming they are treated with Christian love), and one could assume that it's equally acceptable not to own slaves.

+ God expressly condemns homosexuality.

How is the following passage not condoning slavery - it expressly says you can buy the kids of gentile strangers in your town and their kids are your property too with no qualification whatsoever?:
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them
shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are
with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And
ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit
them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your
brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with
rigour."
 
Company CEO films as he berates the drive-through employee at an Arizona Chick fil-A. He loses his job after he posts the video. Not sure what outcome he expected with his display, but the drive-through employee handled the incident with courtesy and dignity.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chick-fil-a-20120803,0,2409892.story

Well the word for this guy is not allowed on this board. I felt horrible for poor girl but she displayed a lot of dignity and class.
 
I probably don't understand what you're asking, but the difference seems simple to me:

+ God neither prohibits nor commands slavery. Clearly, one could assume that it's acceptable to own slaves (assuming they are treated with Christian love), and one could assume that it's equally acceptable not to own slaves.

+ God expressly condemns homosexuality.

Regarding the New Testament era, there is also Paul's Letter to Pheliemon in the Christian Scriptures where he returns the runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his owner despite every opportunity to give him refuge or at least discuss the immorality of slave-owning. He does none of this and instead returns the slave back to his owner in violation of Deuteronomy 23: 15-16.
 
Alternatively, let's push making "lack of reading comprehension" illegal and punishable by jail time. :)

What am I not comprehending? People want to use the American legal system to keep homosexuals from being able to enjoy the benefits offered by marriage in order to "keep them from going astray", but the same people do not want to use the American legal system to punish adulterers or eliminate the no-fault divorce. Would that not also "keep them from going astray"?

After all, this whole backlash is in the name of "protecting the sanctity of marriage", is it not? Mr. Cathy's comments specifically mentioned "we are married to our first wives". How many divorcees and adulterers you reckon packed out CFA on Wednesday to "protect the sanctity of marriage"?
 
How is the following passage not condoning slavery - it expressly says you can buy the kids of gentile strangers in your town and their kids are your property too with no qualification whatsoever?:
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids,
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them
shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are
with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And
ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit
them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your
brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with
rigour."


As I said, slaves would seem to be permissible but not a requirement, assuming of course you show them Christian love.
 
I'd like to study the Greek on the word "slave" also. Oweing a financial debt that could not be repaid was also a way into "slave" status but not exactly the snatch and grab, transported across the ocean, separated from your family, and whipped while you worked slavery.
 
As I said, slaves would seem to be permissible but not a requirement, assuming of course you show them Christian love.

It couldn't be required as slaves costs money and they didn't have a government that could afford to subsidize such purchases - that would be condemning a lot of po' folks.

On the Christian love point, I guess so if Christian love = any beating you can get up from after a couple days.

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: source"]Exodus 21:20-21
[/TD]
[TD="class: quote"]If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave
dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if
the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Last edited:
I'd like to study the Greek on the word "slave" also. Oweing a financial debt that could not be repaid was also a way into "slave" status but not exactly the snatch and grab, transported across the ocean, separated from your family, and whipped while you worked slavery.


It wasn't exactly "snatch and grab." They were bought or bartered for from the African slavers (rival tribes) who had already enslaved them. Their enslavement BEGAN in Africa.
 
Completely different, as a serial killer most definitely brings harm on others while a homosexual marriage does not. Furthermore, a sociopath's mental illness may manifest itself in externally non-violent ways.

I said in the post I WAS NOT EQUATING BEHAVIOR of one with the other. . MY point was GOD not determining a persons behavior on a individual basis at birth. Good Grief. I never mentioned homsexual marriage.

What's so difficult about that? Or are you so blinded by what you assume I'll say you end up reading that into it?
 
I said in the post I WAS NOT EQUATING BEHAVIOR of one with the other. . MY point was GOD not determining a persons behavior on a individual basis at birth. Good Grief. I never mentioned homsexual marriage.

What's so difficult about that? Or are you so blinded by what you assume I'll say you end up reading that into it?

Don't get your panties in a wad. There had been a trend of civility until your post.

Had you been following this discussion, you would have seen that it was based upon the assumption that homosexuality was predetermined at birth.

I assumed you knew what we were discussing but I should've known better.
 
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads