Jump to content

Magazine, The New Yorker Slams Chick-fil-a


Hagar

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, REBgp said:

This is the hidden content, please

From the Article:   "Worse than a load of manure on the F train.  Why?  The main reason - "In no small part by its pervasive Christian traditionalism".   As a Christian, I find that extremely offensive, but such is hypocrisy of the left.

It is offensive...but Christians and conservatives handle being offended like big boys and girls and let it go.

Libs, on the other hand, demand that something must be done if they are offended (can't take up for themselves, I assume).

I am so sick of snowflakes and crybabies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

Why do liberals insist on stomping on Christians and Christianity?  

Christianity is on the Left's hit list.  Evidenced by all the LGBT folks, Abortion clinics, etc.. For the left to succeed, they must reduce Christians to a minority.  And they're just about there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, REBgp said:

This is the hidden content, please

From the Article:   "Worse than a load of manure on the F train.  Why?  The main reason - "In no small part by its pervasive Christian traditionalism".   As a Christian, I find that extremely offensive, but such is hypocrisy of the left.

I saw a picture today in an article  of so-called Christian fundamentalist clapping and supporting Trump. Such hypocrisy!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

May I suggest you guys make appointments for mental competency tests. Something is not computing. 

It is very obvious of who is need of a mental competency test. Since you consider yourself enlightened enough to make a judgment about mental competency of others, do you think that a person who makes an accusation then runs when challenged to provide supporting evidence is mentally competent? I'm curious to get a diagnosis from an undocumented psychologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

I saw a picture today in an article  of so-called Christian fundamentalist clapping and supporting Trump. Such hypocrisy!!!

What is so pathetic about it, New York has been, and still is, the melting pot of this country.  For a magazine in that city (of all cities) to be critical of Christians is absurd.  Especially since this country was fought for, and created, predominantly by Christians.  Reckon you'd be upset if they complained about the NAACP opening an office in New York?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 6:24 PM, REBgp said:

What is so pathetic about it, New York has been, and still is, the melting pot of this country.  For a magazine in that city (of all cities) to be critical of Christians is absurd.  Especially since this country was fought for, and created, predominantly by Christians.  Reckon you'd be upset if they complained about the NAACP opening an office in New York?

I don't know the history of the NAACP but their first office was probably opened in NYC.  before any of us were born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kountzer said:

I don't know the history of the NAACP but their first office was probably opened in NYC.  before any of us were born.

Probably was.  That was just a hypothetical scenario.  Try this one - The New Yorker features an article that says, Having Seventh Day Adventist coming in to New York is like having a load of manure on the F train, in an attempt to rid the city of anyone that's a member.  Or imagine the outcry from the left if they wrote an article saying the same thing about the LGBT community?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

con·tro·ver·sial

ˌkäntrəˈvərSHəl,ˌkäntrəˈvərsēəl/

adjective

giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.  

There is the definition of controversial.  I heard via media that some of what chic fil a believes is controversial.  The same media I read you can read yourself.  

Personally I don't pay much attention to the company, one way or the other.  Most people pat them on the back for not opening on Sundays.  As a sabbatarian I think they picked the wrong sabbath, the false sabbath, but that is not controversial, being that most people recognize the wrong sabbath.  I don't hold it against them.  I am certain God will straighten out the sabbath issue, in due time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

con·tro·ver·sial

ˌkäntrəˈvərSHəl,ˌkäntrəˈvərsēəl/

adjective

giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.  

There is the definition of controversial.  I heard via media that some of what chic fil a believes is controversial.  The same media I read you can read yourself.  

Personally I don't pay much attention to the company, one way or the other.  Most people pat them on the back for not opening on Sundays.  As a sabbatarian I think they picked the wrong sabbath, the false sabbath, but that is not controversial, being that most people recognize the wrong sabbath.  I don't hold it against them.  I am certain God will straighten out the sabbath issue, in due time.

Do you actually believe that we can't see your avoidance of the question? The childish deflection is just comical.

So let's try this again. What controversial views are you alluding to? Are you actually stating that worshipping on Sunday is a controvertible view in America? Please tell me you have something else. And please, please, please tell me you can back up your statements at least on this one. You are o'fer so far. Please get on the scoreboard and give us a cogent defense of your "controversial" statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read it again:

 

Personally I don't pay much attention to the company, one way or the other.  Most people pat them on the back for not opening on Sundays.  As a sabbatarian I think they picked the wrong sabbath, the false sabbath, but that is not controversial, being that most people recognize the wrong sabbath.  I don't hold it against them.  I am certain God will straighten out the sabbath issue, in due time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kountzer said:

read it again:

 

Personally I don't pay much attention to the company, one way or the other.  Most people pat them on the back for not opening on Sundays.  As a sabbatarian I think they picked the wrong sabbath, the false sabbath, but that is not controversial, being that most people recognize the wrong sabbath.  I don't hold it against them.  I am certain God will straighten out the sabbath issue, in due time.

 

So "most people" are wrong, but not you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,951
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Or a less lethal option would be to have law enforcement yell improper pronouns at them...they'd scatter like sheep. I still prefer your way, lol.
    • I ve seen this done in several other countries.  And in those countries it happens very lil because of the severity of the consequences.   I saw a video of other world leaders ask “why does America allow such destructiveness” when all the civil unrest was happening because a criminal/criminals were killed  by not following commands.     we have a great system in place but it’s been compromised and we could still learn from other countries.
    • I am out of VOTES, but I will give a BIG AMEN!!!!
    • You start opening fire and drop about 10 or 12 of these protesting morons it will break up pretty quick.    This ties in with killing the chicken killing dog.
    • This is an easy one. We have let grifter unqualified coaches infiltrate our children and convince them that they will be D1 athletes if they only focus on a single sport. We've got kids, with single digit ages, playing their sport year-round to "maximize exposure" despite the fact that most college coaches on the recruiting trail will value a multisport athlete. This translates to the school year and ends up with kids being football, basketball, baseball only kids. Track is pretty much the only one left that keeps kids playing other sports and that's primarily because football coaches demand their football kids be track athletes. I literally talked to a man last night, who just moved to Texas from Oklahoma who was telling me his kid played on two different football teams during the season last year. One for his school, one for his select league. During the week the kid was a RB for his school, and on the weekends, he was a QB for his select team. This would equal 7 days a week of full contact football for a 6th grader......6th grader. Once that ends, rolls straight into 7 on 7 for the spring and back to football in the summer. All this for a kid, who seems to be a good athlete, but probably has a ceiling of D2 at best, if he doesn't burn out before that. Parents are silly and think they can develop their kids into being the next Quinn Ewers, but they completely miss the biggest factor in creating that type of athlete.....genetics. Genetics are undefeated. Always have been, always will be. Play sports because you love to compete then compete in everything you do. Quit giving bullsheet rings to "state champions" every single weekend all over the US and get back to valuing team championships won at the community level to build the continuity when they are young. This is the only way to reestablish the pride once felt by every kid in every town across Texas when they got to put on a uniform with their school colors. Otherwise, we can kiss the magic of high school sports goodbye. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...