The Fake Lonnie Finch

.

No kidding. More and more free publicity for them that riles up their supporters. If the guy is the type to laugh all the way to the bank, then he's all the way to the bank. Otherwise, he's just quietly walking to the bank. Either way, he's being enriched from the whole deal.

This seems to be how it unfolded: (1) A Baptist guy who owns a chicken food eatery told a Baptist publication (which is read by maybe 116 people worldwide) that he believed marriage should be between and man and a woman, and other things you'd expect a Baptist to tell a Baptist publication. (2) Someone drunk and surfing the internet accidentally found the article and tipped off the "mainstream" press. (3) The mainstream press acted as though Baptist guy was the only person on the planet who believe one man + one woman = only way to marry. (4) The Angry Gays went crazy because a Baptsit believed what the Bible says about marriage and told a Baptist publication, thus said people should boycott Baptist guy's business. (5) Former governor of Arkansas who, with no money, scuttled Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, countered by telling like-minded people to patronize Baptist guy's chicken food establishments on a certain day to show solidarity. (6) The Angry Gays, not to be outdone, called on their people to kiss in front of Baptist guy's chicken eateries two days after solidarity day. (7) Everyone patted themsleves on the back for doing what they did on their respective days to do what they were supposed to do. (8) Baptist guy still believes marriage should only be between one man and one woman...and, he's millions of dollars richer due to the publicity and falderal that followed. Overall, it was a good job of the The Angry Gays riling up people to give Bapist Guy millions more dollars. Now, Pretentious College Students are making demands about Baptist Guy's chicken eateries on their campus. Being at school on their parents' and/or the taxpayers' dime isn't good enough. They've now got to attack Baptist Guy for believing what he believes...surely missing the overall effect of The Angry Gay experience. My guess is, kids brought up in Baptist, and the like, homes will over-patronize the Baptist Guy's chicken eateries, thus putting even more money in his company's coffers. The Pretentious College Students will do one of several, if not all, of the following; (1) make protest signs, (2) write editorials to school papers, (3) blog, (4) facebook, (5) pout, (6) "boycott", (7) have "sit-ins", (8) sing "We Shall Overcome", (9) sigh heavily and act exasperated. I expect a store or two to be closed. Not that it will make a dent in Baptist Guy's profits, due to the earlier "boycott" efforts that led to his chicken eatery being showered with cash.

Thankfully, after the 1960s, people pretty much began to ignore college students again. Also, unless the terms of the contact between Chik-Fil-A and UNT have some sort of clause in there about where Chik-Fil-A donates money, it's a non-issue. Chik-Fil-A follows the law in hiring, managing, and blah-blah-blah, so let the 463 students stupid enough to sign the petition whine. It's the American right to whine about what other people do with their own, private money. We should change the name of the country to the United States of People Who Are Overly Concerned By What Other People Do With Their Own Money.

.

I say 5-7

I'm not. I'll be there on Saturday taking it all in with my young 'ens. My guess is, good wins in the end and everyone is happy...and, these days, I'm alright with that.

Like I said, people here are more sensitive to the story. But, look, this case was a rare case. The insanity plea really isn't in play all that much, and not often successful. The lady was crazy. And, although in theory I hear what Stormchaser is saying and agree with the sentiment, I know that the other 99.99% of criminal cases pretty much verify the need for a Fifth Amendment. Tragedy is just that - tragedy.

Anyone else hear about this movie? I went to lunch with my dad, and he's a big Talk Radio Conservative guy. Anyway, I heard an advertisement for this movie, and it sounds kooky to me. These days, it's whatever plays at Studio Movie Grill's Saturday morning Kidtoons for us as far as movies go (This week, it's a Thomas the Tank Engine flick...oughta be a real nailbiter). But, even if I were still into politics, this thing sounds pretty much like grasping at straws. And, believe me, I'm no fan or apologist for Barak Obama. Stuff like this reeks of being forced. I know that a few years ago Leftists were doing similar polito-crap-umentaries about Bush. Crazy. Both sides are just crazy. I'll never understand why people still get so wrapped up in political stuff when everyone involved is so intellectually thin. I mean, look, the government can't even balance it's own checkbook. I gotta worry about some conspiracy from the Left or Right? Look, no one in Washington, D.C. can even keep a secret, much less mastermind a conspiracy that shifts the fate of a nation offshore. Give me a break with these movies. Michael Moore was bad enough last decade. And, now, all of these wacky neo-Ayn Rand followers from the Right. Just go away already.

As someone who hews more the "tough on crime" side of things, I like your sentiment.

Hey, is this Gill kid any relation to the E. King Gill who was the Aggies first 12th man...who bravely did nothing but stand on the sideline for half a football game...or something like that?

All hope is being lost. We've got a great basketball program on paper, though.

"Stuff...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...and whatnot." The Fifth Amendment and all that entails. Constitutional Law: Learn it. Know it. Live it.

Again, of all the good things McCarney has done, the one thing he and his staff haven't been able to do is get our depth and quality of DT raised. And, it still surprises me.

Very few people cop insanity pleas, less than 1% in all criminal cases. Of those, less than a quarter mount successful defenses based on those pleas. That is the reason they are "high profile" - they don't have often, and they are not often successful. We know of this woman and the Andrea Yates gal mainly because we are in Texas and the murders were horrifying to the max because children were involved. Jurisdictions differ, but I have to admit that it is strange that baby killers are sprung while nutcases like John Hinckley, Jr. are still mainly confined.

Thanks for the article. But, he's confused about Christianity as well. He's talking Christianity, but - as with the gal in the video - falls back into Old Testament examples. He also gives a New Testament example were Sadducees tried to trick Jesus regarding what human relationships would be like in Heaven. In the exchange, Jesus does not endorse polygamy, he simply tells them they have no idea what they are talking about: Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. To try to site that as an example of the acceptance of polygamy is to simply mistate the scriptures. Or, worse, to not understand the context. I feel really bad for people who are under this author's ministry. His interpretation of the letters of Paul are nothing more than a mockery. To elavate Lady Gaga onto a level of Paul is absurd. This author is a person who is misleading people. Sadly. But, again, there are "Christians" who mislead people. It's really simple, but homosexuals do not like it: Jesus, from Matthew 19: 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? This isn't confusing. It's really straightforward. Paul, from Ephesians 5: 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Again, this wasn't complicated or confusing to Paul. There are people claiming to be Christian who rebel against the teachings of Jesus and Paul. They use the cover of "everyone has sinned." And, yes, everyone has sinned. But, the measure of a person striving to be a Christian is whether they are repenting of those sins and attempting to live a better life without those sins in their lives. As stated before, homosexual do not view their actions as sinful and are not attempting to repent of them. This is resistance to the first steps toward Christianity - recognizing sin and repenting of it. Nowhere in the gospel of Jesus, or in the letter's of Paul, do you read, "It's okay to keep sinning because we all sin." Again, Paul address this in his letter to the Romans, 6th Chapter: What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! This author of the piece your offer is in rebellion against the scripture he purports to proclaim. And, he encourages his readers to join him in his rebellion. Not good stuff.

Stormchaser, I'm not ignoring what you are saying about homosexuality. It doesn't matter that man and animal may participate in homosexuality. What I'm saying is, the act isn't healthy when viewed physiologically or productive to the continuing of the specie when viewed biologically. As far as the government telling homosexuals what to do. The thread began with a gal ranting about Christians and their view of homosexuality. But, the fact of the matter is, the government is the people in a democracy. And in the 30+ instances where homosexual marriage has been a ballot issue for states, it has been defeated every time. It even lost is California, which is regarded to be one of the most liberal states. This is an issue that has only progressed through indirect means - legislatures and judiciary branches acting. Despite "poll numbers" and whatnot, it hasn't passed a popular vote, and probably won't in 75-80% of states once all is said and done. In the end, it will be decided by the judicary some day. So...for people to rant at Chik-Fil-A and Christians about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In fact, all it has really served to do, at this point, is give the Chik-Fil-A CEO even more money to donate to anti-gay marriage causes. Christians are pretty much like any other group. If you leave them alone, they'll pretty much stay to themselves. But, whack of them a little and the rise up together. As it stood, Cathays interview was for some publication called "Baptist Press." Well, I mean, what did people expect that a Christian/Baptist business owner was going to say to the "Baptist Press"? It's not like the guy went on Nightline and shook his fist at the country making the statements he did. Had anyone not Baptist even heard of the Baptist Press before the interview? Did most Baptists even know it existed? I think the whole thing got blown out of proportion when it was picked up by the mainstream media. It would be the equivalent of Christians going nutso about a gay business person telling a gay publican that he or she is for gay marriage and donated to its cause. I mean, would that really be newsworthy? Surprising or shocking? I don't think Cathay's interview was, given the media outlet and its audience.

I don't selectively use science. I take the same approach to science, the Bible, pretty much everything - it's either there or it's not. I believe in the creation and evolution. I believe God created things and they can evolve. No specie continues unless is can naturally reproduce itself. And, the misuse of the body, in any given way, leads to detriment. This is proved over and over again without fail in any given physical situation. Look at what we now accept about concussions. The brain wasn't made to be beaten into the skull wall over and over and over again. So, those who choose to participate in activities where that occurs, are more likely than those who do not to have complications later in life. It doesn't matter than it "can" be done or if it "feels good to do it" now and that it is "rewarding" to the ego (and, for some, he bank account). The body will one day cash the checks written on the abuse. I'm sorry, but with homosexuality, I look at what the body is design to do and it doesn't fit. In terms of Christianity, you have to look at what it means. It means you are attempting to pattern your life after Christ.. If you are attemting to pattern your life after Christ, you've got to know what he says. To know what he says, you have to read the account of his life. If what you are doing is inconsistent with his doings and teachings, and the doings and teachings of his disciples (Paul, Peters, John, etc.), then, I'm sorry, you're not really a Christian. Go do something else and quit pretending. You have to apply what you see and know in life and deduct the truth from it. I'm not a stark-raving mad environmentalist. But, I've been to Mexico City and have seen what it is like when a country's environmental policies are too lax. Some environmental laws are necessary. I've studied the law and its history while obtaining a law degree. I am not for complete, Communist-style government. But, I also know what happened in this country before labor and antitrust law curbed what businesses here did. Certain "captains of industry" stockpiled wealth and power to themselves. And, if workers were hurt in their employ, they'd more often than not be fired, with no recourse except to sue those "captains of indsutry" directly...good luck, right? There must be some regulation of business or there would rise up a class of people who would stockpile the wealth and lord it over the rest. Look at Mexico. That's the way it is. The rich and connected lord it over the rest of the country. The protection and welfare of the workers and citizenry at large is an afterthought there. You appear to be a truth seeker that is somewhat sideswiped by feeling and emotion on some issues. But, again, you are young. And, alas...we were all young once. I was once a young, idealistic Conservative. Now, I'm a middle-aged non-voter who keeps his eyes open.

Megachurches are dangerous because they lie about Christ, and they prey upon people's emotions for money. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever solicited funds as a means to: (1) Build more facilities (or, any facilities, for that matter) (2) Promise that prayers would be answered (3) Ensure future enrichment If there truly is an Antichrist, it will come in the form of a "church." This is the only way those inclined to believe in God can be misled. And, as you can readily see from "Pay for prayer" and "Pay for prosperity" television evangelists, many are misled daily. This is part of the reason I disagree with churches being fully tax-exempt. I believe that a church must show that the majority of the their tithes and donations are going towards direct benefit to the community before their exemption can be claimed. For instance, churches should show that the money is being given to food pantries, homeless shelters, abuse shelters, and the like. If not, then a church is no more than a business. Our commercial insurance agency insures churches of all sizes. And, trust me, some of the megachurches we've visited and insured are run no differently than corporations. To me, it's the perfect con for con artists - solicit funds by preying on the emotionally weak, and receiving the funds tax-free because church status can be claimed. Many conservatives will disagree with me on this. But, honesty is honesty...and Jesus did say, "Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's...." in Matthew 22 when religious leaders tried to corner him on the tax question. In America, many churches forget - or, more likely, ignore - that Jesus was not about money.

Right. And, so, with some Biblical knowledge, you can easily identify the Westboro Baptist folk as a cult, not a group of Chrisitians. You also see this in modern day megachurches. Christ had no true "home" place where he preached every week. As a Jew, he went to the temple. He never established that one formal meeting place was to be constructed. He did drive those trying to profit off of the temple activities out of it. Note that Paul did not have a "home congreagation" either. Although he wrote letters to certain "churches" in different cities, it was understood, I think, that they were meeting in each other's home. Beginning with Catholicism and continuing today in American Evangelism, there is a tendency to take money given to a church and construct buildings replete with gymnasiums and coffee shops, as well as bookstores peddling the minister/pastor/reverends' books/tapes/CDs, etc. You won't find reference to Jesus or Paul, the carriers of the gospel to the Jews and Gentiles respectively, to collecting money to build anything, or to profit off of their teachings. Sadly, people are misled. God doesn't need money or buildings. I encourage people to look at their church's budget, as most make them available (usually along with a sermon about giving, sometime in December or January). If the majority is going into facilities (or, the financing of facilities), you probably are at a church whose focus is not where it should be. If the teachings of Jesus and Paul are to be considered important and worthy of following, then money given to any particular "church" is to be used to: take care of the widowed and orphaned, feed and clothe the poor, minister to the fallen. The Dallas area has many megachurches in the area led by pastors and such who own jets, drive expensive luxury cars, and live in huge homes. You wonder what Jesus thinks when you read this passage regarding a potential disciple, from Matthew 8:18-20: 18 When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake. 19 Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” The girl in the video supports gay marriage. But, it wasn't enough for her to just say so. She wanted to rub Christians' noses in it. The details of first followers of Christ are in the Bible, but not in part she chose to quote.

That's the best way to do it. Get an Archeological Study Bible because you seem like a student of history and culture as well. Those do a good job of putting the events as they happened into the context of the time in which they occured. I'd say grab an Archeological Study Bible first, if you're just wading into learning the Bible and want to know about the time and place element within which events occurred: http://www.amazon.com/NIV-Archaeological-Study-Bible-Illustrated/dp/031092605X . Then, if you find the book interesting enough to want to know the nuanced language differences, hit up a Hebrew/Greek Key Word Study: http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Greek-Word-Study-Bible-Bibles/dp/0899577555 . If you're into language, there also exist Hebrew/Greek Key Word study Bibles. Old Testament was written in Hebrew; New Testament in Greek. Both were translated into German, then English...so, you've got some words in English that may have three or four meanings in the original language. Hebrew/Greek give the original meaning. For example, the original Hebrew and Greek texts have three different words for what we translate as "Love." And, so, while you may read the word "Love" in an English language Bible, there is a context to it linguistically. I gave my Archeological Study Bible to a fellow law student years ago. If you seriously want to study the language differences, I'l give you my Hebrew/Greek. I've gotten pretty much all out of it I can. I use those type of Study Bibles are references. But, they are great for beginning students. I think a lot of misunderstanding in the Bible - like the gal in the video has - stems from people not really knowing the context of what they are reading. If you know nothing of the Bible and just pick one up, it's not easy reading. The context is virtually lost on you. It's easy to get bogged down in some parts, and fed up with others. And, since the book isn't exactly in chronological order, you have to have something to keep your sense of time and place right. Archeological Study Bible does a good job of that. Even if you never believe in God or Christ, you'll have a good background about what they are all about with those two types of Study Bible. Good luck.

Same thing here. People were lined up around the building - on foot and in the drive through. Crazy. We'll go tomorrow. I can't see it being any less crowded at dinner.

Yeah, there's the "go and sin no more" that would be the problem today. That was the condition Jesus gave her. He didn't say, "Let her go, she's done nothing wrong." He acknowledged that she'd sinned and, in helping spare her life, gave her the opportunity to stop sinning, repent, and begin a new life. None of that scenario is congruent with homosexuals protesting Chik-Fil-A. They do not accept or acknowledge that they are sinning. Therefore, they have no intention of repenting. Quite the opposite. They want total acceptance of their action by those who do recognize their actions as sinful and harmful. And, further, they intend to go to Chik-Fil-A's on Friday and flaunt their sin in front of the stores. This is nothing like the woman caught in adultry. Jesus said, "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "Go and flaunt your sinfulness publicly." The original post of this thread was the gal in the video trying to take Christians to task for the view of homosexuality. And, she misused the Bible in her effort. Stormchaser entered and pretended to rap us on the knuckles for opposing gay marriage...also mistating the Bible, but at least he admitted not having full knowledge of it. He's intelligent, and I hope he will study it more in depth. It's unlikely that gal in the video would do so, but I hope she does someday as well.

.