Posted on 08/04/2004 1:49:41 PM PDT by PRSOrlando
Can't find an article yet, click the above link to go to the station's website. Muslim company fires a Catholic women for eating pork at the workplace - claimed they had a policy of not eating pork but they didn't have such a written policy.
Go to http://www.local6.com/index.html to view the video, scroll down and click Women Fired For Eating Pork.
Start mailing Barb-q coupons, hot dog wrappers and piggie pictures to them...
Related thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1184893/posts
"Tolerant" Muslims. At least they didn't give her a clitorectomy and then stone her to death for being 'unclean'.
Thanks for the link. I searched for the article on FR before posting and for some reason the story didn't pop up.
Where's the ACLU when you need them? </yeah right>
But your student wasn't an employee with the school. There's a clear difference here.
The law states you can't discriminate an employee in hiring because of "race, color, sex, national origin, and religion."
Many Jews and Muslims are offended by people eating pork products in their presence. She could easily just eat something else, go outside to eat or work someplace else if she can't go a single meal without the other white meat.
That's not Title VII discrimination. Eating pork is permitted by but is not part of the practice of the Christian faith.
For many Christians, it probably is. Some Christians seem to think it's part of "Christian liberty" to eat pork even though the Tanak--which Christians claim is holy--states that pork was never made to be food and there are no NT texts which state otherwise either (despite anti-nomian twisting).
I have heard stories of Messianic Jews forced to give up their culture and kashrut to prove to their gentile brethren that they were loyal to Yeshua.
Mark Gabriel, a former Muslim scholar who converted to Christianity, was applauded loudly at a YWAM traning center when he ate pork for the first time as though he was a 100% Christian until he ate pork.
It seems to me that many Christians have elevated the consumption of pork to a religious ritual and those Christians who refuse to eat pork are considered "legalists" and "heretics" simply because they actually believe what ALL Scripture says, not just the ones which are twisted to "tickle our ears" and tell us we can do whatever we want and make Yeshua happy.
Yeshua didn't die so Chistians can eat pork sandwiches at church potlucks but if you dare tell a Chritian that the Bible doesn't justify pork consumption, they react w/ just as much venom as if you tried to take Charlton Heston's musked out of his "cold dead hands".
Leviticus 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
Isaiah 66:15-17: For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
Sad and disgusting at the same time.
Nicely put. You're knowledge of all this far exceeds mine.
It absolutely is!
Just the same way as it is within Christian liberty to NOT be circumcised. This is fundamental Christian teaching, spoken of in detail by Paul as he condemned the Judaizers in his letters. (You recall on the subject of circumcision he said he wished the Judaizers would go the whole way and cut off their male members entirely.)
On the issue of diet, and the fact of God's gift of salvation to Gentiles, however I refer you to the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 10 verse 1 through Chapter 11 verse 18.
I am very familiar w/ that texts and how anti-nomian Christians twist it to claim they have a sacramental duty to eat pork. The Book of Acts NEVER tells us it is OK to eat unclean meats.
Wait a minute.
Christian liberty and "sacramental duty" are two different things. I hope we can agree on that.
If anyone has told you that Christians have a DUTY to eat pork then, in my opinion, they are wrong. There is no more duty in Christ to EAT pork than there is duty in Christ to NOT eat pork.
As far as this passage is concerned, I understand that you have a different understanding than that of most Christians (at least evangelicals). But in my experience most Bible study leaders, Sunday School teachers and pastors will say that this is exactly what it means.
As for 'anti-nomian'. . . I will research that. I am usually willing to share viewpoints and to learn.
Antinomianism
(anti, against, and nomos, law)
The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his secretaries, who, pushing a mistaken and perverted interpretation of the Reformer's doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching but logical conclusion, asserted that, as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God.
This theory — for it was not, and is not necessarily, anything more than a purely theoretical doctrine, and many professors of Antinomianism, as a matter of fact, led, and lead, lives quite as moral as those of their opponents — was not only a more or less natural outgrowth from the distinctively Protestant principle of justification by faith, but probably also the result of an erroneous view taken with regard to the relation between the Jewish and Christian dispensations and the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Doubtless a confused understanding of the Mosaic ceremonial precepts and the fundamental moral law embodied in the Mosaic code was to no small extent operative in allowing the conception of true Christian liberty to grow beyond all reasonable bounds, and to take the form of a theoretical doctrine of unlimited licentiousness.
. . .
But so grossly and so palpably contrary to the whole spirit and teaching of the Christian revelation, so utterly discordant with the doctrines inculcated in the New Testament Scriptures, and so thoroughly opposed to the interpretation and tradition from which even the Reformers were unable to cut themselves entirely adrift, was the heresy of Antinomianism that, which we are able to find a few sectaries, as Agricola, Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, and Hutchinson, defending the doctrine, the principle Reformers and their followers were instant in condemning and reprobating it.
Luther himself, Rutherford, Schluffleburgh, Sedgewick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, and Williams have written careful refutations of a doctrine that is quite as revolting in theory as it would ultimately have proved fatally dangerous in its practical consequences and inimical to the propagation of the other principles of the Reformers.
. . .
SOURCE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm (The "Catholic Enclyclopedia")
You're right. Most evangelical pastors and Christians in general (let's not pick on evangelicals here, ok?) will claim that the story in Acts w/ Cornelius was the red light to eat BBQ pork but they ignore Peter's own interpretation of the vision in light of what the Holy Spirit had shown him at Cornelius' home.
Acts 10:34-43: Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Not a word in there about nullifying Torah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.