Chick Fil-A fast food locations under attack by Dems and the Left

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
If you go with the assumption that they are the same, one can't really say one is better than the other. Can they?
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Why ever not? If I can confuse AMonger, it's payback, as he confuses me all the time. Because he says homosexuality is determined by the deed, [a point on which he goes into great detail, I notice] not the desire or impulse, which gets very confusing. Is a happy hetero who resorts to gay sex in prison but resumes his actual preference for females when released a homosexual? Is a homosexual who's so far in the closet he's suffocating still a 'pervert'? Is one a homosexual if they tried it once and didn't like it? :confused:


Just too many questions. ;)
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
There just are not all that many homosexual parents.

You haven't a clue how many, do you? Not even counting the ones who pretend they're hetero, sometimes even to themselves, for many years.

As their numbers increase so will the rest. They are not immune to anything, even the horrors of killing children. They have NO problem killing their spouses, other people, etc. They are human. They are as flawed as much as the rest are.

No argument there - but the point was that if they were/are harming their children, why isn't it ever mentioned in the news? I have never seen even ONE report of a gay parent killing their child [but quite a few delusional religious ones!] or being charged with abuse.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Can't say that it hasn't happened, but I would agree that nothing has been reported that I can remember with them beating or abusing their kids.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Can't say that it hasn't happened, but I would agree that nothing has been reported that I can remember with them beating or abusing their kids.

People are people. Homosexual or straight, makes no difference. IF it has not happened yet, it will.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No argument there - but the point was that if they were/are harming their children, why isn't it ever mentioned in the news? I have never seen even ONE report of a gay parent killing their child [but quite a few delusional religious ones!] or being charged with abuse.


You are of course assuming that the media would report it. Right now homosexuals are part of the 'favored class'. Their 'hate crimes' etc could be under reported so as to show them in a better light. Just as 'religion' is under attack from the left, as always, so ANYTHING that can be done to show it in a bad light, will be.

That is in NO WAY meant to diminish the sins committed by those who committed them.

I do, however, do not be believe that there is unbiased reporting on these subjecgts.

Off to CA, the granola state, the land of fruits and nuts now.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Morals are no more rooted in religion than other inherently human traits such as creativity, generosity, etc.

Morals came from God's instructions to man. You may be confusing morals with ethics. Murder is immoral because God has prohibited it. It's unethical because you have no right to deprive another man of what's his, but immoral because God has said "Thou shalt not murder."
They existed long before religion was created to explain the unknown.
Religion, in the broader sense, was not created, but founded, and by God. Religion, in the more specific sense of the word--modern, organized religion, apart from the religion founded by God when He began His dealings with man--could be said to have been created.
Aristotle is correct in saying morals are highly subjective, which is the point AMonger can't seem to get.
No, he's not. Humanist ideals are subjective, while morals are subjective only in application. If you believe something to be morally wrong and do it anyway, you've sinned.
He thinks HIS morals should be imposed upon everyone,
Not precisely true. I do, however, believe everybody should live by Christian morals. God expects you to.
even when there's plenty of evidence proving they're simply wrong: hundreds of gay parents have raised children as well as [and often much better than] heterosexual parents.
I don't think I've ever heard of a single instance of a gay parent killing or abusing their child, now that I think of it, while examples of 'normal' hetero parents doing so are daily horrors in the news.
Every time a sodomite couple pretending to be parents raises a child to not fear the Lord, or to believe that :censoredsign:gotry is anything but a ****able sin, they've harmed a child.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
OK....so you are squicked by two guys being parents as you refer to them as sodomites. So...I guess you are ok with two women getting it on? I give it a thumbs up if they look good. ;)
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Of course it is. Duh. Without the second, the first isn't valid, any more than without the first the second would be valid. They are two sentences which together convey a single idea or thought. They are not separate and mutually exclusive ideas which can be taken out of context, which you are attempting to do.

But since you want to play this game, fine, what about the first sentence is invalid?

Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.

All I have to do is come up with a single instance where the statement is true to make it perfectly valid. I can do that with one hand tied behind my back. There are certainly times when religious instruction is also the right thing, but that doesn't in and of itself make the statement invalid.

The term religion encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and teachings. One example in no way validate the claim when using a single wide reaching term like religion.

Told what to do by whom, in what religion? Your attempting to paint with an extremely broad brush to validate the Statement.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
OK....so you are squicked by two guys being parents as you refer to them as sodomites. So...I guess you are ok with two women getting it on? I give it a thumbs up if they look good. ;)

As tempting as the thought of Jennifer Aniston & Courtney Cox is, yes, it's still a sin. Some sins are less disgusting than others, though.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
I believe that is where the saying "everyone deserves a little sin" comes from.:p
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The term religion encompasses a wide variety of beliefs and teachings. One example in no way validate the claim when using a single wide reaching term like religion.

Told what to do by whom, in what religion? Your attempting to paint with an extremely broad brush to validate the Statement.
I'm not attempting to validate it at all, since it stands on its own. I'm simply attempting to give you the opportunity to invalidate it.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Ive done that several times already. It falls far short of standing on its own. Not much use in continuing this one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
You keep saying it's invalid, but you won't say why. If you can't do that, then you're right, no point in continuing. Just keep in mind that religion requires following certain rules, both of worship and of behavior. Those rules don't change based on morality, but rather create a morality of its own within the scope of the religion. But the rules have to be followed, no matter what, or the religion itself becomes not a religion at all.

Morality changes all the time in society. Always has. But not religion. Sometimes religion and morality is in conflict, and adherents to a religion are told to follow the religion regardless. And they do. That's what religion is.

If you do something religiously, that means you do it no matter what. If there are exceptions, then you're not doing it religiously. That's where the saying, "doing something religiously", comes from. How can you say that's invalid, when it's a simple fact of life?
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
While you all have gone down the road of religion, sexual preference, and what God says and so on, I'm putting in a testimonial for CF-A. Somewhere in the past while in Alabama, I was hungry, hot, in traffic as usuall and frustrated. In front of me I came upon a Chick Fil A establishment so I pulled in to get out of the insane traffic.

What a pleasant surprise. It was quiet, no blaring rock and roll, no jungle gym for kids, the counter people were pleasant with an attitude that they were glad to see me. ( now thats different )

There was christian music playing at a low sound level, instrumental I believe, and get this, there were flowers on every other table. The atmosphere was calming and that day I needed that. The food was very good, but it wasn't the food that got my attention, it was the attitude of the employees, the sense of peace and order and calm. You would have had to be there, words are not enough to describe the peace.

I then started going more often to eat at a Chick Fil A. It was always nice and peaceful just like the first time. It may work for you to, it worked for me. It was not like your average fast food joint, not even close and thank the Lord. IMHO
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Most cf,s are franchise owners.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
You keep saying it's invalid, but you won't say why. If you can't do that, then you're right, no point in continuing. Just keep in mind that religion requires following certain rules, both of worship and of behavior. Those rules don't change based on morality, but rather create a morality of its own within the scope of the religion. But the rules have to be followed, no matter what, or the religion itself becomes not a religion at all.

Morality changes all the time in society. Always has. But not religion. Sometimes religion and morality is in conflict, and adherents to a religion are told to follow the religion regardless. And they do. That's what religion is.

If you do something religiously, that means you do it no matter what. If there are exceptions, then you're not doing it religiously. That's where the saying, "doing something religiously", comes from. How can you say that's invalid, when it's a simple fact of life?

You finally used the word "sometimes" if that had been used un the statement it would be vastly different.

Religion does not mean we will be that way 1oo percent of the time. It is understood we will fail it is what you do when that happens. I have to say again religion encompasses many beliefs and to lump all into one statement does not work.

Here is what it read to me.

Potato salad makes you sick.
Being sick does not make you eat potato salad.

Ok now i am done, had fun thanks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
 
Top