# Boycott McDonald's???



## Walkthecalling (Jul 23, 2008)

I put a little something on this in my olympic thread, but I thought since this was a seperate matter to move it here. What about boycott's like this one:
Boycott McDonald's - A Project of American Family Association

They also did the same thing to Ford for about a year and half, but recently stopped because they said Ford changed their policies. Should you support this?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 23, 2008)

Maybe because their food is terrible.


----------



## jawyman (Jul 23, 2008)

I don't support MacDonald's because they are poisoning the world with the nastiest tasting food ever.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 23, 2008)

Actually, I really like the taste of their fries and cheesburgers, but they are bad for the body, no doubt. And McDonald's is doing what they are doing just to sell more product. Boycotting them won't change them.


----------



## etexas (Jul 23, 2008)

I have to admit something here, every now and then, I LIKE a QP w/cheese no onions.


----------



## Walkthecalling (Jul 23, 2008)

Depends on where your at man, but I love their sweet tea! So do you think we aren't responsible for the impact of our dollars? Random situation here: but restaurant A and B are side by side. One you know is owned by a faithful man of the Lord, and the other you know is an atheist. They sell the exact same food, should you choose one over the other. Should that enter in the equation? I read an article about the writer of the Harry Potter series. She gives millions to different Atheist groups, pro-abortion groups and such. Even if you thought her books entertaining would you have a responsibility to not add your money to those groups? Just wondering... food for thought...


----------



## Davidius (Jul 23, 2008)

etexas said:


> I have to admit something here, every now and then, I LIKE a QP w/cheese no onions.



I agree. The QP is one delicious sandwich. But no onions?! EXTRA onions!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 23, 2008)

joshua said:


> In my humble opinion, Boycotts are silly when folks are trying to bind others' conscience in doing so. It doesn't matter what you buy, somewhere, in some way, it has been associated and tainted by the wickedness of the world. If you want to boycott something, and you want your family to do so, by all means do it. But don't make it a matter of personal holiness for everyone else.



When do you go from advocating a position to attempting to bind someone's conscious?


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Jul 23, 2008)

Hey. I boycott Burger King for its disgusting food... why not McDonalds? Well, McD isn't as bad as BK, in my opinion.

Anyone see that movie "Super Size Me"?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 23, 2008)

I agree with the AFA. I supported the Ford boycott which lasted for many years. Their sales dropped significantly through the years and their dealerships did in fact petition the upper management at Ford to become neutral in support of the Homosexual agenda. I believe it worked. 

I am also boycotting McDonald's. I love their egg mcmuffins. It is the breakfast of champions in my opinion. But I am now going a block away to Hardees for breakfast now. Businesses that support Rampant Depravity need to be warned and challenged that they are actually supporting the degradation of society instead of building up the community. 

All the AFA and I are asking is that they remain nuetral in the Homosexual agendas propaganda and that they no longer support this debauchery financially. No one is asking them to freeze a hiring of homosexuals or anything like that. In fact sexual preference should not be discussed when interviewing for a job.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 23, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree with the AFA. I supported the Ford boycott which lasted for many years. Their sales dropped significantly through the years and their dealerships did in fact petition the upper management at Ford to become neutral in support of the Homosexual agenda. I believe it worked.
> 
> I am also boycotting McDonald's. I love their egg mcmuffins. It is the breakfast of champions in my opinion. But I am now going a block away to Hardees for breakfast now. Businesses that support Rampant Depravity need to be warned and challenged that they are actually supporting the degradation of society instead of building up the community.



It's just common sense. Nobody needs to play Lord of the Conscience to recognize that paying for a cheeseburger in order to support sodomite marriage is a waste of money.

Try moving to California for a while, and then it might make a little more sense.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 23, 2008)

joshua said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



I am not so sure that anyone has done that Josh.


----------



## Seb (Jul 23, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am also boycotting McDonald's. I love their egg mcmuffins. It is the breakfast of champions in my opinion. But I am now going a block away to Hardees for breakfast now.



Off topic, I know, sorry.

Martin, you need one of these. They're great and they make better egg mcmuffins than McD's:

Amazon.com: Back to Basics TEM500 Egg-and-Muffin 2-Slice Toaster and Egg Poacher: Kitchen & Dining


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 23, 2008)

I wonder if the AFA would have called for a boycott of meat that had been sacrificed to idols if it had been around in Paul's day?


----------



## Walkthecalling (Jul 23, 2008)

As my personality tests have proved I easilly fall into the Champion Idealist (enfp)category and it just seems that if people did boycott it would impact sales. I have a hard time thinking there is no recourse against such companies. It seems wrong to be lukewarm about it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 23, 2008)

Seb said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I am also boycotting McDonald's. I love their egg mcmuffins. It is the breakfast of champions in my opinion. But I am now going a block away to Hardees for breakfast now.
> ...




Christmas is coming..... LOL


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 23, 2008)

joshua said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...




OK Joshy. 

I would also say that no one can say or accuse anyone of sin for not supporting the boycott. If they did they would have to quit buying all sorts of stuff that support godless material gain and oppression, if that were the case. 

The only reason I am supporting such boycotts is because of the in your face attitude that supports total reprobate actions in society. These actions tare the fabric of a society totally apart. Homosexuality is a sin that is considered the end of reprobation. And it is a very dark sin.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 23, 2008)

Brad, 

I think you're missing the point here. No one's arguing that it's a sin to eat McDonalds food. At most, they're saying that it's a bad idea since your revenues go to support sodomite "marriage".

Cheers,

Adam





Brad said:


> I wonder if the AFA would have called for a boycott of meat that had been sacrificed to idols if it had been around in Paul's day?


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 23, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Brad,
> 
> I think you're missing the point here. No one's arguing that it's a sin to eat McDonalds food. At most, they're saying that it's a bad idea since your revenues go to support sodomite "marriage".
> 
> ...


Yeah, but didn't the sale of the sacrificed meat go to support idol worship?


----------



## govols (Jul 23, 2008)

Davidius said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > I have to admit something here, every now and then, I LIKE a QP w/cheese no onions.
> ...



You got that right. The un-yawns make the QP.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 23, 2008)

Brad said:


> Yeah, but didn't the sale of the sacrificed meat go to support idol worship?



Clearly, but you're still missing the point. Paul argues against the notion that the meat sacrificed to idols is _a sin in itself_. Since no one is saying that eating McDonalds meat is a sin in intself, the passage you're bringing up is not on point.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 23, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but didn't the sale of the sacrificed meat go to support idol worship?
> ...


He also did not say christians should not buy it. He did not call for a boycott, and I'm sure he was aware of the fact that it supported idol worship. If this were the pattern we are to follow, wouldn't he have recommended against its purchase rather than make allowances for it except where it would stumble a weaker brother? I don't think there is much that you can buy out in the world that the profit does not support some kind of sinful behavior.

I think its fine for anybody to spend their money in whatever way they believe is appropriate, but the AFA often seems to infer that to buy certain products is sin on the part of christians, and i don't see support for that idea in the Word.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 23, 2008)

Brad said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Brad,
> ...



Paul did say that if you gained knowledge that the meat was sacrificed to an idol you shouldn't partake of it. But by nature the meat was just meat because the idol is nothing. 



> (1Co 8:4) As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
> 
> (1Co 8:5) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
> 
> ...



I don't think this bares much concerning the reason for the boycott.


----------



## Mindaboo (Jul 23, 2008)

Over the years I have had a lot of emails for boycotts, and always chose not to participate. 

I think the biblical way to boycott is to show preference to Christian corporations when possible, instead of giving money to pagan corporations. 

My children and I took a field trip to Chik-fil-A and they are run by a Christian man, who promotes family and really takes care of his employees. I decided after that field trip I would always give my money to them over any other fast food chain.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 23, 2008)

Brad said:


> He also did not say christians should not buy it. He did not call for a boycott, and I'm sure he was aware of the fact that it supported idol worship. If this were the pattern we are to follow, wouldn't he have recommended against its purchase rather than make allowances for it except where it would stumble a weaker brother? I don't think there is much that you can buy out in the world that the profit does not support some kind of sinful behavior.




This is an argument from silence, and proves nothing either way. Paul deals with the inherent morality of eating the meat, he doesn't deal with whether or not its a good idea to buy, but only if it is a sin to eat.

Also, I don't think that it is factually true that there is not much in the world that we can't buy that doesn't support sinful behavior. But, even if I concede the point, it just proves why boycotts are THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT. If Christian's sit on their duffs and complain about how they're always supporting wickedness, shouldn't they *do* something about it?

Adam


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 23, 2008)

joshua said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



Would you ever consider a vote for any candidate for some office to be morally wrong?

CT


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 23, 2008)

I have decidedly mixed emotions about the idea of a boycott. 

* It has been correctly observed that most boycott's do not work and that efforts to organize them often do as much damage to one's own side as the evil being boycotted did in the first place. And, as a person that puts several million dollars of our organization's money only in investments that are "socially responsible," I know firsthand the difficulty of consistency in this area. We stay away from the "sin" stocks but most large corporations have subsidiaries that do just about everything! It is almost impossible to separate oneself from everything that is heinous in the world.

* On the other hand, I am outraged at the cheekiness of corporations that jump on the latest liberal band-wagon to pander to perversion. They think that doing so will enhance their bottom line. It does not offend me to think that a little punishing of their bottom line is in order. 

* On balance, having lived through boycotts of Disney, Universal Studios ("Last Temptation of Christ"), and Carl's Jr. (tacky Hugh Hefner ads and the near p*********** Paris Hilton series), I have limited excitement about another one. The people I boycotted seemed to have done just fine without my support.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 23, 2008)

In a free market, one votes with the money he spends.

Things that are valued tend to stay in business. Things that are not, change, or go out of business.

Why not use your spending power to influence behavior?

It's one of many tools the ordinary person has to affect things in his society and it is more powerful than most people realize. We are blessed in this country to have a very high amount of consumer spending power- 2/3 of the economy is based on it. 

The average citizen, the average Christian, can and ought to use money to change behavior for the better. There is a spiritual component to this because God's Word gives us a principle that the way we handle money is an outside indication of what is going on inside spritually (cf Luke 16:10-13).


----------



## matt01 (Jul 23, 2008)

Walkthecalling said:


> Boycott McDonald's - A Project of American Family Association



My stomach will not let me participate in this boycott. I really like McDonald's food, though it is cheap and totally unhealthy.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 23, 2008)




----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 23, 2008)

sans nom said:


> Walkthecalling said:
> 
> 
> > Boycott McDonald's - A Project of American Family Association
> ...



 I had a double quarter pounder with cheese and a large fry for supper tonight! I guess I'll have to start my boycott tomorrow....

or maybe not!


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 23, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> sans nom said:
> 
> 
> > Walkthecalling said:
> ...




I'm boycotting the American Family Association!


----------



## TimV (Jul 23, 2008)

A bacon cheese burger is in violation of at least two dietary laws, but it's probably healthier for you than those fries. Doesn't the oil on them just migrate to the face of you younger types?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 23, 2008)

TimV said:


> A bacon cheese burger is in violation of at least two dietary laws, but it's probably healthier for you than those fries.


The pork chops I had for supper last night violated a dietary law also.  I'm not too concerned about the dietary laws.  And how many dietary laws are are broken by pizza? The mind boggles!




> Doesn't the oil on them just migrate to the face of you younger types?


  Who you calling "younger type" Haven't had zits in 35 years!


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 23, 2008)

Pilgrim72 said:


> Hey. I boycott Burger King for its disgusting food... why not McDonalds? Well, McD isn't as bad as BK, in my opinion.



 so not cool. BK has the best burgers there are. I demand an apology


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 23, 2008)

This rampant enthusiasm for McDonald's makes me wonder if I really belong on the PB. I am so disappointed in ya'll.  BK tastes far better than Mickey D's. It does. A flame grilled burger, you gotta love that. And also, surely I am not the only one here to find Ronald McDonald just a little creepy?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 23, 2008)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Pilgrim72 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey. I boycott Burger King for its disgusting food... why not McDonalds? Well, McD isn't as bad as BK, in my opinion.
> ...



Well said, brother Keon.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Jul 23, 2008)

21st Century Calvinist said:


> This rampant enthusiasm for McDonald's makes me wonder if I really belong on the PB. I am so disappointed in ya'll.  BK tastes far better than Mickey D's. It does. A flame grilled burger, you gotta love that. And also, surely I am not the only one here to find Ronald McDonald just a little creepy?


exactly, I wonder what has gotten into the PB. Are they so spiritual that their taste buds have been nullified?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 23, 2008)

What's worse is that this is a public forum. What will the watching world think of us? We can spot a bad beer a mile off, but not a burger!


----------



## Clay7926 (Jul 23, 2008)

21st Century Calvinist said:


> What's worse is that this is a public forum. What will the watching world think of us? We can spot a bad beer a mile off, but not a burger!



Doesn't that mean that we have our priorities straight?


----------



## etexas (Jul 23, 2008)

Anton Bruckner said:


> Pilgrim72 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey. I boycott Burger King for its disgusting food... why not McDonalds? Well, McD isn't as bad as BK, in my opinion.
> ...


NO WAY Anton! McD is way better than BK. Plus THEY have their own Burger U.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 23, 2008)

Clay7926 said:


> 21st Century Calvinist said:
> 
> 
> > What's worse is that this is a public forum. What will the watching world think of us? We can spot a bad beer a mile off, but not a burger!
> ...




But a Mickey D's might ruin the taste of a good beer.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 23, 2008)

etexas said:


> Anton Bruckner said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim72 said:
> ...



Do I sense a PB debate coming? Or at least a poll!


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Jul 23, 2008)

21st Century Calvinist said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Anton Bruckner said:
> ...




A Poll? What's a poll? Etexas, do you anything about polls?


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Jul 23, 2008)

Davidius said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > I have to admit something here, every now and then, I LIKE a QP w/cheese no onions.
> ...



Yeah! If you put enough onions on it, I might even eat a _turkey-bacon_ sandwich!



P.s. Has the turkey-bacon thing gotten to this point yet:?


----------



## Wooster (Jul 24, 2008)

Just so long as we don't have to boycott Subway!

Seriously (Actually I was kinda serious about Subway), I can see good points on both sides. I guess I'm just not surprised when I see the world acting like the world.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2008)

Wooster said:


> Just so long as we don't have to boycott Subway!
> 
> Seriously (Actually I was kinda serious about Subway), I can see good points on both sides. I guess I'm just not surprised when I see the world acting like the world.



Actually AFA did give a warning shot to Subway when they were going to award some students from public schools only with some benefits. They were exclusively omitting Homeschoolers. When news reached Subway that the AFA was not pleased a formal apology was issued and explanation. AFA is very effective in promoting good causes and a healthy godly society.

BTW, Hardee's Thick burgers whip Burger Kings burgers any day of the week. 

I vote for Hardee's.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 25, 2008)

Burger King for chicken (tender crisp is awesome)

McDonalds for Burgers

KFC for fries (Potato Wedges) and biscuits

I might support this boycott as I did against Ford, BK's burgers are good enough (lol)


----------



## Zenas (Jul 25, 2008)

I don't eat there because it's nasty.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 25, 2008)

First of all, I _like_ McDonald's and their food (I'm on a tight budget so I don't eat out much, even there).

That being said, when they refer to those who oppose same-sex marriage as being motivated by hate, this is a direct reference to the word of God and those who hold to it, calling sin sin that those who have ears to hear might hear His offer of mercy and be saved. McDonald's is saying my God is motivated by hatred. Sorry, them's fightin' words. They don't get my dollar, and if a multitude thinks like me, they'll hurt by it.

This is being salt in an unsavory world.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 25, 2008)

Brad said:


> I wonder if the AFA would have called for a boycott of meat that had been sacrificed to idols if it had been around in Paul's day?



It is strange how people misread what Paul is saying in the I Corinthians passage. Here it is in a nutshell in modern terms:

If you don't know that the Chinese workers in the Chinese restauranct are offering up the food to Buddha before they serve it to you, then it is not a matter of sin or conscience for you. However, if you DO know that they are doing such a thing, then DON'T EAT IT. This accords perfectly with what Jesus rebukes the believers in Pergamum for in Revelation 2:14.

Likewise, if you know that McDonald's uses the money you pay them to _corporately_ fund evil causes - abortion, homosexuality, p0rnography, whatever - then you should not eat there. And no, not all restaurants do such things (at least that you may know of -again, Paul's instruction above), so you obviously still have plenty of restaurant choices.

What is so difficult for people to understand about this?


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 25, 2008)

> 1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
> 1Co 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.


I think he said not to ask about it it and not to worry. 


> 1Co 10:27-33 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. (28) But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: (29) Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? (30) For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? (31) Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (32) Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (33) Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.


Then he says if pagans want to be loud and obnoxious about it, decline to eat for _their conscience's sake_, not our own.

I have no problem with any Christian deciding to spend their money according to the directives of their own consciences. I do take issue with them attempting to bind the consciences of other Christians in the matter, which seems to be one of the main objectives of the AFA.


----------



## TimV (Jul 25, 2008)

> However, if you DO know that they are doing such a thing, then DON'T EAT IT. This accords perfectly with what Jesus rebukes the believers in Pergamum for in Revelation 2:14.



No, for one thing Paul also said to go ahead and eat it. For another, you are mixing things. McD's is not sacrificing their tomatoes to Baal. They are using the profits of their business to do what they want with it. When Solomon acted a broker between the Hittites and Egyptians he didn't give a hang what they did with the chariots or horses.

If I buy cucumbers from a woman at the Farmer's Market who uses the profits to go to bars (I do and she does) it's not sin on my part!!



> Likewise, if you know that McDonald's uses the money you pay them to corporately fund evil causes - abortion, homosexuality, p0rnography, whatever - then you should not eat there. And no, not all restaurants do such things (at least that you may know of -again, Paul's instruction above), so you obviously still have plenty of restaurant choices.



No, because the new muffler you just bought came from a heathen in Israel and the oil you are burning in your car come from heathen in Kuwait. To demand what you are really demanding is simply impossible, and forces you to be a hypocrite every day of the year.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 25, 2008)

Brad said:


> > 1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
> > 1Co 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
> 
> 
> ...



I think we are basically saying the same thing - again, it is sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" for conscience sake. If they do tell you, no, don't eat it, and for _his sake_ I take it to mean as a didactic warning - "I don't eat to support idolatry, and neither should you." Again, as stated, this is the only way I see to take Paul's meaning and not contradict Jesus' rebuke in Revelation 2:14.

Regarding the "force" and "binding" issue - well, it's sort of like the "evangelical Christian" who voted for Clinton. Not only do you shake your head in disbelief (what were you thinking???), but you do sometimes feel like they should be strapped to a post and lashed for not only their incredible stupidity, but also for neglecting their biblical responsibility to uphold and maintain righteous rulers.


----------



## TimV (Jul 25, 2008)

> Regarding the "force" and "binding" issue - well, it's sort of like the "evangelical Christian" who voted for Clinton. Not only do you shake your head in disbelief (what were you thinking???), but you do sometimes feel like they should be strapped to a post and lashed for not only their incredible stupidity, but also for neglecting their biblical responsibility to uphold and maintain righteous rulers.



But you're doing the same sort of thing in that post. I feel the same way about Christians who voted for Bush, but I'm sure not going to dictate to them who they vote for, or what telephone service you use. I'll bet you a hundred bucks that if you listed the top 50 people you give money to I could force you to stop using their products and services by your own standards.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 25, 2008)

TimV said:


> > However, if you DO know that they are doing such a thing, then DON'T EAT IT. This accords perfectly with what Jesus rebukes the believers in Pergamum for in Revelation 2:14.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, the issue is _knowledge_. What do you know?

You don't know the actual owners of the far away places. They could actually be Christians, you know, they do exist there.

But that is the whole point. _You don't know_, and that is the emphasis. If you DO know what they are doing, and you keep buying and looked the other way or are indifferent to the evil they are doing, then yes, there is some responsibility there.

Paul said if you do know, don't eat it. Jesus said if you do know, don't eat it. What verse are you looking at?


----------



## TimV (Jul 25, 2008)

I Cor. 8



> 7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; *we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. *



Be assured mature Christians ate meat offered to idols, unless they knew they were offending others.

But please, we are not talking about meat offered to idols. McD's does not offer it's lettuce to Ashtoroth. We need to get this clear. We are talking about someone using their money to do things we don't approve of. I bought some exotic plants from a homosexual some months ago, and I knew full well he used part of the money to pay rent on a house where he lives in gross sin. Once, I even bought a snack from a Muslim, and just the other day at Costco I bought some pickles that some Jews blessed, turning them Kosher.

I gave you an example from Scripture with Solomon. I can give you others if you like. It is permissible to do business with the heathen, even if they use some of the money you give them for sin.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 25, 2008)

The meat sold in the shambles was commonly from animals sacrificed to animals, and people, including Paul, commonly knew that. Paul was addressing the fact that the world's markets are commonly run by heathens who obtain their products from ungodly sources and spend their profits for ungodly things. He says we are not to concern ourselves with that, _even to the point of not bothering to ask about it_. The only time he recommended refraining from partaking of such products was when one of the heathen was in your face about it, not because of our own conscience, but again, for the conscience of the heathen, i.e. to not give them occasion to mock Christ. And this is because it doesn't matter. Heathens will be heathens. The only place we'll get away from that is in heaven. They will consistently do sinful and silly things with their money. Paul is telling us that just as their actions are fruitless and futile, so is our fretting over it. Our liberty is not affected by the actions of the heathen. They may rage and imagine vain things, but our God laughs at them in derision. Why are we to behave differently towards them?


----------



## R Harris (Jul 26, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Regarding the "force" and "binding" issue - well, it's sort of like the "evangelical Christian" who voted for Clinton. Not only do you shake your head in disbelief (what were you thinking???), but you do sometimes feel like they should be strapped to a post and lashed for not only their incredible stupidity, but also for neglecting their biblical responsibility to uphold and maintain righteous rulers.
> 
> 
> 
> But you're doing the same sort of thing in that post. I feel the same way about Christians who voted for Bush, but I'm sure not going to dictate to them who they vote for, or what telephone service you use. I'll bet you a hundred bucks that if you listed the top 50 people you give money to I could force you to stop using their products and services by your own standards.



Well, again, you miss the point, so I will end with this post. The 50 people tell me nothing, so I don't know what I don't know, which is exactly Paul's point. Nothing new here. But regarding the homosexual vendor you are aware of; you mean to tell me you cannot find a Christian vendor of like service, and support that brother or sister instead? 

As for voting, if you know a man supports and condones murder of innocents, a Christian should not vote for him, and should be rebuked by the session for doing so. I also have not voted for Bush I or Bush II, since they also have issues, with Bush II having a very difficult time avoiding the breaking of commandment I and commandment IX.

So, the conscience Christian should simply not vote, knowing serious issues with either candidate, which is what I plan to do. There are other races and issues on the ballot, and I vote as biblically as I can for the other candidates and state questions.


----------



## TimV (Jul 26, 2008)

> But regarding the homosexual vendor you are aware of; you mean to tell me you cannot find a Christian vendor of like service, and support that brother or sister instead?



No I can't. And I don't need the plants, I just wanted them, and bought them, as is my clear right from Scripture.



> As for voting, if you know a man supports and condones murder of innocents, a Christian should not vote for him, and should be rebuked by the session for doing so.



You're still doing it! I had a similar discussion with someone who said anyone voting for Ron Paul should be excommunicated since Paul took a donation from a neo-nazi. And that's where your line of thinking leads.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 26, 2008)

I have homosexuals who are friends; I wouldn't discriminate against them.

A for-instance: if a store-owner was saying untrue and damaging things about my wife, and wouldn't stop, I would certainly be in my rights -- to say the least -- to boycott his store and urge our friends to do likewise. This would not be seeking to "bind the consciences" of our friends, but rather to _persuade_ them to a course of action to cause the store-owner to cease his calumnies of a mutual loved one. And they would still be our friends if they continued to shop there; they might have their good reasons.

Properly speaking, "binding the conscience" pertains to forcing -- coercing -- it under pain of condemnation / damnation to obey one's dictates. The Roman Catholic organization does just this, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

Sometimes I follow "Christian boycotts", sometimes I don't. I don't feel like my conscience is at risk of being bound when others seek to persuade me in such things.

There is a slow process of subtle dehumanization taking place regarding Christians. The primary thrust of this process is the allegation that we are hate-mongers -- that we fight the legalization of same-sex marriage, and the indoctrination of school children (elementary on up!) that same-sex marriage and sexual relationships are normal and natural, because we are hateful people who are bigoted against "normal loving couples" due to our uptight and hateful religion and its hated-filled Bible and God.

There is no mention -- or understanding -- that love for the lost guides our bringing the Law of God into view, and the terror of the Day of Reckoning, and the offer of mercy to all who forsake their sins and cleave to the Savior who paid for our sins Himself.

The Nazis dehumanized segments of their populations, so that when the crunch came, Jews, homosexuals, stand-up Christians, the mentally retarded, etc were not to be considered members in good standing of the human race, but evolutionary throwbacks who needed to be eliminated for the good of the new world order, and the progress of the enlightened.

The homosexual activists (not the grass-roots folks who seek to live quiet and peaceable lives) have an agenda that includes the removal of the orthodox (small o) Christian community from the world, because of their God's stand on sin, and particularly that sin.

What is coming from McDonald's is now part of that dehumanizing process -- and as McD's popular standing among great multitudes will influence many, it is a significant thing. Of course, the world, McD's, the homosexual activists, etc could have no power against us unless it were given from Above.

Sometimes the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to keep silent. But then some evangelicals have been withdrawing from the public square for quite a while now.

When they start erecting gallows in those squares, we will wake up.

In ten years I do not think we will recognize the America we once knew and loved. Something about the "mystery of iniquity" being let loose.


----------



## TimV (Jul 26, 2008)

> The Nazis dehumanized segments of their populations, so that when the crunch came, Jews, homosexuals, stand-up Christians, the mentally retarded, etc were not to be considered members in good standing of the human race, but evolutionary throwbacks who needed to be eliminated for the good of the new world order, and the progress of the enlightened.



Actually Jews were targeted for elimination from Europe, not from the human race. The nazis really wanted them to go to places like Palestine, and even provided financial incentives, but they weren't always made welcome in many area. Homosexuals were put in jail for the same reason they were put in jail here: because homosexuality was illegal. Some (a very few in terms of percentage) of institutionalised retarded people were killed to free up hospital space and other resources for the war effort. Nobody went door to door and arrested retarded people. Stand Up Christians as a group often missed out on promotions but certainly weren't even arrested, let alone killed. Bonhoeffer was killed while working for the nazi equivalent of the CIA, and died because of involvement in a plot to kill a legally installed Head of State during a time of war, not because he was a Christian.

As far as McDs, I doubt they have the influence some think. The local one just hired me to remove a swarm of bees from their play area, and I noticed every one of the workers were Mexican, who are more socially conservative than Whites on the homosexual issue. I doubt anyone working there or eating there even knew they give money to sodomites.

I like your point about good men doing nothing, though. We need to focus our efforts on what we can affect. Yesterday Brad brought up an issue in his church which would seem a prime opportunity for constructive change. Something that a member of a small to medium sized church would have a good chance of winning. That sort of thing would seem a better allocation of emotional and other resources. Lots of good young people here getting married and having lots of kids! While the homos don't have any. We will bury them in small increments ;-)


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 31, 2008)

> That being said, when they refer to those who oppose same-sex marriage as being motivated by hate, this is a direct reference to the word of God and those who hold to it, calling sin sin that those who have ears to hear might hear His offer of mercy and be saved. *McDonald's is saying my God is motivated by hatred. Sorry, them's fightin' words.* They don't get my dollar, and if a multitude thinks like me, they'll hurt by it.



When ANYONE equates God's word with 'hatred', I think it's fair to stop patronizing their place of business. I also don't have a problem with folks telling me that I am supporting sin by supporting these peddlers of 'food' who use the profits to support sodomites. If I know that my dollar spent at store A will go to being spent on drugs by the proprietor, I would be negligent if I did not tell my brother who frequents said store.

This is all to say that as for me and my family, we will not eat at McDonald's.

You want to sell a burger, go ahead. If it is tasty, I may buy it.

You want to sell a burger and use the profits to promote a homosexual lifestyle? You keep your burgers and I'll keep my money.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 31, 2008)

My mother's dad, who ran the Vienna newspaper, _Neue Freie Presse_ (I think later renamed _Die Freie Presse_), died in a Nazi prison after refusing to cease publishing against Hitler.

I don't want to haggle about the process of dehumanization that preceded the slaughter of various segments of the population in Nazi Germany (and its conquered nations); suffice it to say that when people are dehumanized ("demonized"?) it is much easier to dispatch them from the living, or at least from freedom. And what is coming from McDs is that sort of thing.

"Oh? Those Christians? They are haters of humankind, enemies of mental and emotional health, disrupters of a peaceful and harmonious society, and their leaving the world will only be to our benefit. Besides, if reincarnation is true, they'll see their errors and have another chance, so their deaths are no big thing. Good riddance this time around!"


----------



## jogri17 (Jul 31, 2008)

How about not eating McDonalds because the food is bad? That seems just as good of a reason. IF St. Paul opened up a restaurant and served McDonalds quality food, I still wouldn't eat there.


----------



## satz (Jul 31, 2008)

R Harris said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the AFA would have called for a boycott of meat that had been sacrificed to idols if it had been around in Paul's day?
> ...



Paul does make the point that our knowledge does determine how we respond to food offered to idols, but his point all through chapters 8-10 has been that the reason for abstaining is the consciences of others. In chapter 8 he mentioned abstaining so as not to offend the consciences of other Christians who did not have the same knowledge as the strong Corinthians. In chapter 10 he expands his reasoning a bit to include not offending unbelievers via associating with idolatry.

However, nowhere in Paul’s reasoning do I see any indication that he cares, or expected his readers to care about what the vendors do with the money they are given. Paul’s concern is with the effects of eating idol meat on other believers or on the Corinthians’ testimony. The support or non-support of this or that cause never even enters his consideration.

I humbly submit that I honestly see no emphasis in the new testament on boycotts at all. Children of God living in an evil world are going to have indirect contact and associations with sin, and throughout the bible, godly men have not let this bother them.

Although he would not sin personally, Daniel willingly served the pagan Babylonian and Persian empires. Joseph willingly served and supported the rule of Pharaoh in Egypt, including giving preferential treatment to pagan priests (Genesis 47:22). In the new testament Christians were slaves to pagan masters, but Paul still told them to serve their masters wholeheartedly.

If someone’s conscience is grieved in being associated with Macdonald’s than let them abstain. But it is the bible which defines what separation from the world is, and it never instructed Christians to engage in boycotts or similar actions.


----------

