would be a hoot if not so sad (Priest "blesses" Hooters Restaurant)

[Henry from Canada]

In reply to Ryan:

Ryan, I am sincerely sorry that I indirectly taught you a bad word. The thought that your pure mind has been slightly disturbed is very disturbing.

However, I find threads like this extremely enlightening. They allow me to see the hearts of people.

They have changed the way I have viewed my Reformed forefathers. My father passed away in 1999. I wish he were alive today so that we could discuss these topics.

I have learned a lot about human nature on this board.

 

[Henry from Canada]

Ryan said:
"Yeah, we got some jabs in at the priest, but in all seriousness, there is plenty of liberality and stupidity in the evangelical and Protestant world as well."

Well put, Ryan. That is yet another reason I hestitate to condemn this priest.

The measure you to judge will......

 

[Scott]

"I never would accuse Hooters of gambling. I apologize if any of my posts implied that anyone at Hooters gambled."

My point was that your story about gambling did not imply Hooters is a gambling establishment any more than my story about the pastor who visisted a house of prostitution implies that Hooters is involved in prostitution.

 

[Scott]

Ryan: The convseration has gone from talking about the restaurant to Henry's general accusations about the hypocrisy of PB members, the nature of the exploitation of women, what kind of conduct implies approval, etc.

 

[Henry from Canada]

Scott, we agree on two things.

We both do not eat at Hooters.

We both do not spend Sunday afternoons watching men play a violent sport with scantily-clad cheerleaders cheering them on.

Were do we disagree?
I will not condemn the priest for twice visiting Hooters and praying for its employees.

Actually, I won't condemn anyone for watching the Super Bowl either.

This board is absolutely fascinating. Have a great day!

 

[Henry from Canada]

Scott said:
"My point was that your story about gambling did not imply Hooters is a gambling establishment any more than my story about the pastor who visisted a house of prostitution implies that Hooters is involved in prostitution. "

That is a relief. I knew exceedingly little about Hooters till yesterday. I would hate to be defending an establishment that supported illegal activities.

The pastor in my story did in fact literally play cards and gamble.

 

[Henry from Canada]

You people have taught me a lot.

How I view my Dutch Reformed forefathers will never be the same.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Henry from Canada
You people have taught me a lot.

How I view my Dutch Reformed forefathers will never be the same.

Henry, what exactly have you been taught?

 

[Henry from Canada]

In reply to Peter:

At a later date, I may elaborate on your question. I am dealing with some energy constraints right now. I still have yet to exercise today.

If the people on this board wish to condemn this priest, then go ahead.

I will not condemn this man. I suspect his motivation was love. I suspect someone like this will sometimes make certain sinners more likely to behave in a Godly fashion. I suspect people like this priest make a lot of mistakes, because the people that try the most usually make the most errors.

I could be dead wrong on this. If so, I am sorry.

Peter, you are one poster on this board that really impresses me. I suspect that you are a real gentleman. It's too bad we disagree on certain issues.

Oh well, have a wonderful day.

 

[Henry from Canada]

I noticed that many of you "modern day" Puritans like worldly entertainments such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Seinfeld, etc., even though they frequently glorify sinful activities such fornication.

Question:
Did the 17th century puritans also willingly consume such material? Did they read novels that frequently praised fornication?
How would they feel about the Dallas Cowgirls - and their manner of dress?

Or, did their pasttimes and interests resemble those of the sinners?

 

[Henry from Canada]

Oh Ryan, you impress me too. I suspect you and I both understand how difficult it is to deal with the "lusts of this world."

I just feel so guilty for teaching you a naughty word.

 

[Henry from Canada]

Ryan said:
"BTW What happened to "the measure you to judge will......" I have trouble understanding where you are coming from, when you get on people for being "gun-toting hicks" and for objecting to the blessing of this restaurant establishment, and than you play accuser regarding people's worldliness. I have yet to see anyone post NFL cheer =leader pictures on the forum.

1. I never called anyone here a gun-toting hick. Who did I call a "gun-toting heck"?

I said that when you post a handgun and iPod on a Christian board and ask which is the better investment on Christmas Eve, some people may have their worst perceptions of Christians confirmed. Some people might think that this board is populated by "gun-toting Christian hicks." On a public board, perceptions count because we are Ambassadors of Christ.

If the Pope posted a web page on the Vatican web site that asked which is a better investment a gun or an iPod (pictures included), some people may become very disturbed. I suspect some people on this board would get very upset.

2. I am not accusing anybody of anything. And I am not telling anyone what to do. If you want to listen to "Can't get no satifaction" by the Stones, go ahead. If you want to watch Joe Theissman (sp?) get his leg broken, go ahead. If you want to watch Seinfeld, go ahead.

BUT if you want to criticize a priest for blessing the employees of Hooters, then I feel strangely compelled to ask a few questions.

If you want to criticize the way Hooters waitresses dress, then I get confused because NFL cheerleaders dress with even less clothing. There appear to be many NFL fans here. What gives?

3. "The measure you use to judge will be used to judge you."

I have to remind myself of the same thing sometimes. I used to watch Seinfeld in years gone by. I think the show is brilliant, yet the subject matter is distressing. I was so distressed at TV, I went 3 years without it.
Even now, I only watch about 1 hour per week.

I am not criticizing anyone for watching Seinfeld. I am questioning people who criticize sinful TV programs, yet watch these very same programs.
If you want to watch Seinfeld, fine. But again, I get confused. Many of you modern-day Puritans like this entertainment. Did the 17th century Puritans approve of novels glorifying fornication?

There is absolutely no doubt that I hold many minority views here.

That is OK. But when I saw this priest being criticized, I became confused and concerned.

If I am wrong, please forgive me.

If you want to condemn this priest, go ahead.

My prayer is:
Lord, it is easy to see the sins in others. Please help me see and repent of my own sins.

 

[Henry from Canada]

In the eyes of myself and "many in the world" you behavior represents the Puritans.

If you call this the Puritanboard, people like me often think that you are modern-day Puritans.

 

[matt01]

Originally posted by Henry from Canada
I just get exasperated by people judging one another, while turning a blind eye to their own issues.

I hear you, Henry. It is interesting that some sins are easier to condemn. Speeding is acceptable, because "we are just going with the flow of traffic." Having a co-worker punch out our time cared is ok because "that tight wad of a boss doesn't pay what he should." But when are son or daughter announces that they are {fill in the blank}, we hit the roof and scream about sin. If we hate sin, shouldn't we hate all sin? If we condemn a certain type, shouldn't we condemn ourselves for being {fill in the blank}?

 

[Henry from Canada]

Thanks Matthew, your response makes me feel less alone on this board.



Life is tough. I suspect those waitresses at Hooters do not make a lot of money. And I fear that some of them are somewhat uncomfortable dressing the way they do.

On the other hand, many NFL cheerleaders and many girls in the malls wear much less clothing.

I hope the priest's blessing impacted at least one of these women in a positive way.



A few years ago, I worked with a young woman who was very beautiful, but had a past full of rebellion and drugs.

On the surface, she was a confident, beautiful, articulate babe. Some of the women in the office were angry that she showed a little cleavage.

Now when I look back, I suspect she felt very guilty over her rebellion in her past. I suspect she also felt guilty over the fact that she did not seem to fully make use of her potential, or her "talents."

Normally, we guys tend to think beautiful girls have it made. After all, someone that looks like a young Terri Hatcher (like her) must have all sorts of options.

But others told me that her boyfriend was a heel.

Anyway, in hindsight, I remember how hurt she looked when she had to endure even slight rejection from ugly, dirty men. She was somewhat intimidating because she had an explosive temper, but in hindsight, I remember once we were talking and she said she could no longer say anything more because she might burst into tears.

Anyway, I suspect many of these beautiful women at Hooters in those "vile" costumes are just like this woman.

Some of them are probably single parents. Some of them are constantly bombarded by amorous men looking for only one thing - and that's not their interpretation of Romans 9. (Well, Ryan might be interested in Romans 9.)

I think it would be extremely cool if this "vile" priest actually made an impact on their life.

I think it would be great if this priest's blessing encouraged one of these women to maybe rethink this concept of God and maybe reach out to a Christian or purchase a Bible.

On the other hand, maybe you guys are right. Maybe this priest should have petitioned to have Hooters banned. Maybe the priest should have lectured these women on proper dress, and then lectured those even more scantily-clad cheerleaders on the same subject.

Perhaps a good lecture from a priest would have convicted these sinners.

I highly doubt the 17th Puritans would have condoned the way young women generally dress in today's society.

Anyway, this is where we disagree:

After reading this article, I suspected that this priest's motive was to reach out to the lost and overcome any feelings of rejection these women had over the petition to ban Hooters.

None of the above posts have changed my perception, unfortunately.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I could well be wrong.

My prayer to God:
Lord, please show me how to properly reach out to non-Christians, so that I can properly react totheir prejudices, fears, hurst, etc.
(And also so I do not behave stupidly and give Christians a bad name.)

 

[Henry from Canada]

I am sorry if I offended you in any way, Ryan.

The woman in question was bombarded by many men over non-religious stuff, not wholesome stuff like how to properly interpret Romans 9.

I figured a decent man such as you, who did not even know what hooters were, would be more interested in loftier topics such as Romans 9.

Actually, I've debated Romans 9 with a woman who did not know who Britney Spears was.