Chick-fil-A Finds Increase in Business Amid Controversy
According to Sandelman & Associates of San Clemente, the evangelical Christian-led fast-food chain experienced a 2.2 percent increase in visits from customers from July to September.
Paul Clarke, spokesman for Sandelman & Associates, provided The Christian Post with a press release regarding the data from the group's Quick Track Study.
"Despite protests and predictions that the fast-food chain would be hurt by the publicity, Chick-fil-A appears stronger now," reads the statement.
Neil wrote: So you simply do NOT know what you are talking about.
You would have a hard job proving that, Neil.
FYI wrote: God told Noah and his sons in Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Do you believe then, that there are scriptural injunctions as to what we eat?
I think if Noah had remained a vegetarian, he would have perished after the flood.
John UK wrote: To answer both Neil and Brillo Pad, let me say just this: There is NO biblical argument for eating any particular foods. But: ... I will give you a diet which will IMPROVE your health, either immediately or in the future.
That's a *very* big "but." Just like a diet huckster, you say things you cannot prove to be true, Biblically or otherwise. So you simply do NOT know what you are talking about.
To answer both Neil and Brillo Pad, let me say just this:
There is NO biblical argument for eating any particular foods. But:
1. The design of the human body is obviously that of the initial diet given by God to Adam and Eve.
2. I unashamedly state that if men and women the world over were to eat a healthy diet, then the oversubscribed hospitals and doctor's surgeries would experience a massive decrease in admissions.
3. There is MONEY involved in the rubbish we have been programmed to accept from the food markets. And when I say money, I mean BIG money, made by people who care nothing for the effects their products have on the human race.
4. Meat in America comes from animals which have been injected with growth hormones. This is impacting the humans who eat such rubbish.
5. Fish are very much farmed nowadays. This means they are not natural growth creatures, but bizarre specimens of mens' desire to make more money, rather than feed people with healthy food.
6. Proof is in the eating. I will give you a diet which will IMPROVE your health, either immediately or in the future.
7. If you want to suffer later in life because of what you ate, don't blame THE LORD, but your own eating habits.
John UK wrote: 1. You conveniently avoid the point, but hey ho. If you think the meat which God authorised is the same as meat you can buy today from the butcher's shop, you need to do a bit of research about what on earth is going on in the industry. 2. You really think I am a food propagandarist? 3. Not at all. Where did that come from? As far as I am concerned you may eat what you like, and suffer the consequences. It is like the gospel. I tell people the consequences of not believing on Christ, and you call me a legalist?
Best I can tell, meat still comes from animals, whatever they're fed. There is still no Star Trek galley as yet. The main issue now is whether it's got bad bugs in it, but since that's a matter of fallacious science, you're still in an epistemological blind alley. And even veggies have been blamed for having E Coli.
Yes, I think you & jpw are food propagandists, in that like the industry, you claim things you cannot prove to be true. And you're condemning certain foods just like the Judaizers of old, only from a modernistic dietary perspective. Why bring up contentions over ambiguous matters of no Scriptural importance? That is what I rebuke you for.
John UK wrote: And you think the Lord's parable was about food?
Yes. Thats why Peter replied, "14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."
"He was ordered by a voice from heaven to make use of this plenty and variety which God had sent him (v. 13): "Rise, Peter, kill and eat: without putting any difference between clean and unclean, take which thou hast most mind to." The distinction of meats which the law made was intended to put a difference between Jew and Gentile, that it might be difficult to them to dine and sup with a Gentile, because they would have that set before them which they were not allowed to eat; and now the taking off of that prohibition was a plain allowance to converse with the Gentiles, and to be free and familiar with them. Now they might fare as they fared, and therefore might eat with them, and be fellow-commoners with them" M.Henry)
ps; Do you think the Bible teaches "Veggie only"??
Neil wrote: 1. You left out meat, which man is also authorized to eat, after the Fall. So what does any of this prove about say, hydrolyzed soy protein or preservatives? They, no less than wine, are derived from edible natural products. Salt is a preservative. Yet you really think these verses are specific enough to support your form of food propaganda (point 2)! 3. Yes, in that you're condemning actions not obviously forbidden by Scripture. It is one form of legalism.
1. You conveniently avoid the point, but hey ho. If you think the meat which God authorised is the same as meat you can buy today from the butcher's shop, you need to do a bit of research about what on earth is going on in the industry.
2. You really think I am a food propagandarist?
3. Not at all. Where did that come from? As far as I am concerned you may eat what you like, and suffer the consequences. It is like the gospel. I tell people the consequences of not believing on Christ, and you call me a legalist?
John UK wrote: 1. I like the easy questions, Neil. here it is - the blueprint written by God: Genesis 1:27-29 KJV 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 3. You think I'm a Food Legalist?
1. You left out meat, which man is also authorized to eat, after the Fall. So what does any of this prove about say, hydrolyzed soy protein or butylated hydroxytoluene (available in freshwater phytoplankton)? They, no less than wine, are derived from edible organic natural products. Even inorganic salt is a preservative uncondemned by Scripture. Yet you really think these verses are specific enough to support your form of food propaganda (point 2)!
3. Yes, in that you're condemning actions not obviously forbidden by Scripture. It is one form of legalism, adding to what God has revealed.
Old people have suffered infirmities long before modern food processing. And how do you know they'd be any better off if they followed your dietary regimen?
Brillo pad wrote: Didn't God change the shopping list John..... Acts 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
And you think the Lord's parable was about food?
Neil wrote: And I am amazed at what a fuss you people make over meat & drink, which so far as I can tell, is not what the Kingdom of Heaven is about.
And I am amazed that after the church service, the main topic of conversation among the elderly congregation is to do with visits to the doctor, hospital apppointments and surgery, what tablets people are taking, what aches and pains, colds and coughs - a lot of which would not exist if people ate properly.
John UK wrote: 1. I like the easy questions, Neil. here it is - the blueprint written by God: Genesis 1:27-29 KJV 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat...... 3. You think I'm a Food Legalist?
Didn't God change the shopping list John.....
Acts 10:10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Neil wrote: 1. Is it? Where in Genesis? Do you have a botanical list I overlooked? 2. I don't believe everything dentists say; they too do not understand the fallacies of science. For instance, I've heard all kinds of reasons for certain symptoms, depending on the dentist. Which should I believe? How about none of them? 3. I prefer butter myself, but again, I'm not going to play the Food Legalist & blame margarine use. Perhaps it is harmless for some folks.
1. I like the easy questions, Neil. here it is - the blueprint written by God:
Genesis 1:27-29 KJV 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
2. Yes, it pays to be careful who you believe. Do you believe the food propagandarists?
John UK wrote: Firstly, ask your dentist if sweets are bad for your teeth. Oh, but then, you don't accept the word of professionals. The design of the human body, and what it requires to function properly is adequately shown in the first few chapters of Genesis.
Is it? Where in Genesis? Do you have a botanical list I overlooked?
I don't believe everything dentists say; they too do not understand the fallacies of science. For instance, I've heard all kinds of reasons for certain symptoms, depending on the dentist. Which should I believe? How about none of them?
I prefer butter myself, but again, I'm not going to play the Food Legalist & blame margarine use. Perhaps it is harmless for some folks.
Neil wrote: Care not a jot, you say. But you beg the question in that you assume the product is unhealthy, then blame the vendors for selling it. But you haven't proven the product is unhealthy. You cannot; it is impossible. Why not stick to what God has expressly revealed? That causes enough controversy as it is.
Firstly, ask your dentist if sweets are bad for your teeth. Oh, but then, you don't accept the word of professionals.
The design of the human body, and what it requires to function properly is adequately shown in the first few chapters of Genesis.
p.s. No comment about hydrogenated oil maragarine?
John UK wrote: Neil, if you take the sweet industry, designed to attract youngsters, with chocolate bars, candy floss, sweets, fudges, and so on, you have there a "money-grubbing" industry, which cares not a jot for the well being of the buyers. I sincerely hope you do not use that soft spread margarine which is made from hydrogenated oil. If you do not, perhaps you'd like to explain why not?
Care not a jot, you say. But you beg the question in that you assume the product is unhealthy, then blame the vendors for selling it. But you haven't proven the product is unhealthy. You cannot; it is impossible.
Why not stick to what God has expressly revealed? That still gives you plenty to argue about here.
Neil wrote: What's the difference between a "money grubber" & someone who merely makes a profit?
Neil, if you take the sweet industry, designed to attract youngsters, with chocolate bars, candy floss, sweets, fudges, and so on, you have there a "money-grubbing" industry, which cares not a jot for the well being of the buyers.
On the other hand, you have those who care very much that their product actually does some good to the buyer. Their profits may be less, but they will not have to face God at the judgment on that score.
There is much misinformation concerning foods and drinks in this world, and I for one would not wish to be the cause of encouraging anyone to eat or drink anything which will do them harm. I did enough of that as a non Christian.
I sincerely hope you do not use that soft spread margarine which is made from hydrogenated oil. If you do not, perhaps you'd like to explain why not?
John UK wrote: The money-grubbers in the food market would have to revise their products and pander to the wishes of their customers who would now want food which is actually good for them.
What's the difference between a "money grubber" & someone who merely makes a profit? Sounds to me like an arbitrary charge of greed is being leveled.
And I am amazed at what a fuss you people make over meat & drink, which so far as I can tell, is not what the Kingdom of Heaven is about. Now don't think I'm indifferent to dietary matters, but I don't presume to judge the choices other people make either, unless there is solid Biblical ground. And I'm sorry, but MSG isn't mentioned.
Did you know that even some Kosher food have MSG in them (e.g. Manischewitz soups)? Maybe legalistic Jews understand "adiaphora" better than some Christians.
jpw wrote: what would happen if people began to connect how sick they feel with what they are eating?
The money-grubbers in the food market would have to revise their products and pander to the wishes of their customers who would now want food which is actually good for them.
Too many deluded Christians are eating whatever they want, even junk foods, claiming that God is sovereign over their life; yet whenever the slightest ailment takes them, they trot off down to the doctor for a prescription to aleviate the symptoms, not realising that according to their own belief system, they are actually fighting against God who has obviously brought this malady upon them.
The truth is that sickness and malfunction of the body can in many cases be attributed to putting the incorrect fuel into the body which God designed.
If anyone will eat a sensible diet for ten days or more, they will prove it for themselves, as at least some of the common ailments they suffer from will simply disappear.
when the ingredients become so inflammatory that knowing what you eat is an insult to the coorporation, then it begs the question......what are we doing?
this is exactly what is going on with prop 37 in CA. companies are spending multimillions to keep people from knowing their products are in the foods being eaten.
what would happen if people began to connect how sick they feel with what they are eating?
13
There are a total of 52 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
john yurich usa from usa: "
lisa
so it's the authorised version plus the..."
