A friend of mine living near the small town of Kewaskum, WI found a sign on a Dairy Queen that he knew I would be interested in seeing. He took a picture of it and sent it to me. Since there was contact information on the sign, I contacted the owner of the restaurant and asked him for an interview. His name is Kevin and he is the owner of this DQ franchise. Below is the sign and our conversation.
@GodsNotReal_: The sign in your
drive-thru warns that the content may be offensive. Why would you alienate your
customers and employees in such a way that might make them feel unwelcome?
Kevin: Actually,
the sign does not warn content may be "offensive", it warns that we
may not be "politically correct". It defines that
"incorrect" speech as "Merry Christmas", "Happy
Easter", "God Bless America", among other things.
This is speech that a large portion of our community welcomes, thanks, and
appreciates. What alienates a large majority,
especially Christians, is that simple expressions of God and Country are
being marginalized and alienated currently in our society. We are
simply serving notice that expressions of God and Country are made at our restaurant,
and are very welcome here. Those that are bitterly
opposed to such expressions are welcome to arrange a "safe space" in
advance where I can guarantee no expressions of God and Country during the
visit.
@GodsNotReal_: Does the Dairy Queen corporate
office know about your sign and what do they think about it? What do you
believe they would think about it if they ever found out (assuming they don't
know currently)?
Kevin: Yes, DQ corporate knows about
it. We had a local school teacher complain to DQ corporate
about the sign in January 2016. To my surprise it was not
"Merry Christmas", "Happy Easter" , or "God Bless
America" that "offended" him, but term "delicate snowflake
safe space". He knows me, and rather than approach me
with his concern, he wanted to see if corporate lawyers would make me
take the sign down, based on wording of the
complaint. I found it very disappointing in terms of the idea
of open expression. The idea that one hopes corporate lawyers
would suppress open expression of God and Country. This
particular teacher has continued to patronize my restaurant. In fact, he was in
last week. So it appears to not be a big deal. I believe
he "pushed that button", just to see what would
happen. I'll still be donating product and gift certificates to
school activities and school groups when he requests it. I harbor no
upset over the complaint. I just wish he would have talked to me first, and if
my response was unsatisfactory, then he could give feedback to DQ corporate about
his challenge with the sign.
The franchisee contract I have
with DQ corporate does not prohibit open and thankful expressions of God and
Country.
@GodsNotReal_: How would you feel about hiring
somebody at your restaurant who had different religious or political beliefs
than you? Would you hire a Democrat? A Muslim? An atheist?
Kevin: I have several Democrats
on staff that constantly remind me they are voting for Hillary
Clinton. We talk politics once in a while.
Usually we have light-hearted comments about the latest presidential
"scandal du jour". I have one staff member that says he
is a "socialist", and big time Bernie Sanders supporter.
I also have a staff member that likes to pronounce his atheism, openly, from
the hilltops from time to time. If I have a staff member that is
Muslim, it would be unknown to me. I don't ask staff if they
are Muslim. I also don't ask, or care, in the interview process if
someone is Muslim, Democrat, Republican, atheist, etc,
etc.
@GodsNotReal_: What about a gay employee? Your
Facebook profile picture says that a rainbow is "a promise of God, not a
symbol of pride." Would you hire an openly gay person, and what does that
quote even mean in the first place? The symbol is beloved by the gay community
partly because Judy Garland, a well-known advocate for homosexual equality,
sang "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" in "The Wizard of Oz;"
because the many colors represent diversity living in harmony together; and
because a rainbow occurs naturally. Isn't it possible for it to be both a
promise AND a symbol?
Kevin: (As a note to readers, the sign I have posted in restaurant has no
mention of the subject matter of this question.)
I honestly don't know if I have any "gay" employees. I'm
fairly sure I have had in the past, or could possibly have "gay"
employees currently, but most of it is secondhand speculation by other
employees looking at some type of social media or gossiping, so I take those
rumors and speculation with a grain of salt. I generally like to squash any
gossip of any kind in the workplace. To me, labeling people gay or straight
benefits no one. Labeling people only presents false identities, which entrap
people into a certain mindset. Sexual identities are a distraction from the
only true identity God desires for his people. If I desire, as the most
important thing in my life, that my marriage under God's design, "or
heterosexual identity" is the primary thing I want to be perceived by
others, it is a reflection of a sinful, perishing identity. (Or in other words,
if I signal a sinful "pride" to others that I am not gay, (or
"straight") that is a perishing, sinful, identity.) My "identity" as a faithful
disciple in Christ, living a life pleasing to his instruction, should be what
others see.
(As a note to readers, the sign I have posted in restaurant has no
mention of the subject matter of this question. The Facebook
profile picture is on my personal Facebook page.)
When it comes to hiring, I don't ask potential hires about their
personal relationships/dating practices. 90% of my hiring is 14, 15, & 16
year olds (teenagers). With rare exception, that age group does not pronounce
their personal dating history to me during interview process. I don't ask. If
an adult came in and wanted to shout their gay lifestyle from the hilltops in
the interview, my next questions would be same: Can you make change? Are you
capable of friendly customer service (demonstration may be required.)? What is
biggest issue with restaurants today? etc, etc.
Facebook icon picture. "Rainbow: A Promise of God, Not a symbol of
Pride" is a reference to Genesis Chapter 9:8-17.
8 Then God said to Noah and to his
sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with
you and with your descendants after you 10 and
with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all
the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living
creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with
you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never
again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said, “This is the sign
of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature
with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I
have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant
between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring
clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I
will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of
every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all
life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the
clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God
and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
17 So God said to Noah, “This is the
sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the
earth.”
Rainbow is a promise of God to sinful mankind that no matter how
depraved and hostile mankind becomes to our good and perfect Creator, he will
never use his anger to destroy mankind in such a manner again. This is an
important promise. God’s glory is exemplified and shown in the
rainbow.
God appears as a rainbow in Ezekiel 1:28
"Like
the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the
radiance around him.
This
was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I
saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking."
This was a sign of hope and God's grace to those in Babylonian captivity
through the prophet Ezekial. So the rainbow is as close to the description in
this world we can get to what our perfect Creator looks like. Through the rest
of Ezekial's prophecy the image of a rainbow encircled the glory of the Lord
from the land of Judah (Ezekial 8-11). The Lord again left (and rainbow departed))
due to Judah's apostasy. But the end of Ezekial's revelation (and Judah's
repentance) the rainbow (the glory of the Lord) returned. Ezekial 43:1-2.
The glory of the Lord is again a Rainbow in Revelation 4:3. At the end
of all things, the glory of the Lord will shine through and we can expect that
glory may appear as a rainbow.
For the unbelieving, sure, it could be both a promise and a symbol. For
a Christian with active, not passive, faith in Christ, NO. If Christians
understand that mankind is in a state of total depravity and hostility toward
God, and we are lost without Christ, why would one associate the Glory of God,
and a promise of God, the rainbow, with anything other than his glory and
promise?
The inerrant Word of God, the Bible, and the biblical rainbow, pre-dates
Judy Garland by a few thousand years.
@GodsNotReal_: When you talk about a safe place
for any customer who may feel unwelcome by your references to "God"
and "Country," can you see how that could possibly drive customers
away? If you are literally talking about different seating sections for
Christians and non-Christians, then imagine going to a restaurant with a sign
that said "We do not welcome any references to the Christian God, this
establishment only worships Quetzalcoatl, the Aztec feathered serpent
god;" or this sign "This restaurant promotes a secular America and
our staff will openly discuss anti-theism. Christians, your safe place is to
the left and in the back." What about a sign that said "This business
makes racist jokes, so black people sit to the left, and white people sit to
the right." I find it hard to believe that you would happily frequent
these places of business and I feel that no sign at all, or a sign that openly
welcomes ALL people would be a better customer experience for everybody.
Kevin: I don't see how. I
patterned it after the university "safe spaces" we see on many places
of "higher learning". Those universities talk about how
"inclusive" and "diverse" they are when they provide a
"safe space". My sign fully informs, and is fully transparent, about
our thankful, grateful, expressions of God and Country, which may happen from
time to time at our establishment. Those that are bitterly opposed to those
thank expressions of God and Country can arrange a space with me where those
expressions will be absent for the visit. If someone feels unwelcome by
thankful expressions of God and Country, and unwilling to arrange a safe space,
they do have choice not to come. So far, I have had many more say they came just
because of the sign. Our society truly appreciates leadership and courage to
stand for God and Country.
I was not envisioning specific
seating sections. If someone actually requested a safe space, which no one has,
I would insure I would personally serve that person, and I would not offer any
"Happy Easter", "Merry Christmas", "God Bless
America", and not give any free sundaes to Veterans on Veterans Day in
front of that person, among the other things listed on my sign. I cannot
prevent other customers from presenting an expression of God and Country, so no
specific "seating arrangement" would be needed. If someone wants to
wear a "I'm atheist and proud" shirt in my restaurant, great. I've
been known to wear my "Jesus don't leave earth without him" t-shirt
in my restaurant once in a while posing as a customer (to inspect staff
performance). So other customer expression is not under my control. I do not
monitor that expression unless there is a complaint from someone that another
customer is disrupting experience of another customer in the restaurant
somehow. Most of this kind of complaint is young kids playing music loudly, and
even that is only once or twice a year, if at all.
The sign does welcome all. It is just informing those that find common
grateful expressions of God and Country unacceptable, we can "curb our
enthusiasm" toward any of that activity upon request.
As a Christian, that hopes his faith shows through, I would be opposed
to business signs that would potentially reject Christ's grace in action. Here
are a couple passages reflecting that standard.
Ephesians 4:29:
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but
only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it
may benefit those who listen.
Ephesians 5:4
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking,
which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving
I would easily classify any
"racist" talk as "unwholesome" and "unhelpful"
when reflecting upon a life lived in the grace of Christ.
@GodsNotReal_: Do you support homosexual marriage; why or why not?
Kevin: I support marriage under
God's design as precisely described by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:4-5.
“Haven’t you read,” he [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning
the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 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’[b]?6 So
they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together,
let no one separate.”
Again by Jesus in Mark 10: 5-9
5 “It was because your hearts were
hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But
at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For
this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and
the two will become one flesh.’[c] So
they are no longer two, but one flesh.9 Therefore what
God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Marriage is a divine institution. I oppose anything that rejects that
divine institution. That would include people living together without being
married, but acting like they are married. Divorcing your spouse for reasons
other than the biblical exceptions: desertion or adultery. And yes, that would
include rejecting "gay" marriage. Mankind does not define marriage,
God does.
The WI Constitution acknowledges the divine in the first sentence of the
Preamble to WI constitution:
"We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government,
insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this
constitution."
Gratitude to Almighty God would mean following his design for marriage.
WI voters also affirmed God's design for marriage in a vote last decade
that got 2/3'rds of WI residents to vote "Yes" affirming God's design
for marriage.
Rejecting this divine design for marriage, rejects Almighty God, rejects
our gratitude toward Almighty God, rejects our WI constitution, rejects the
will of the WI voters.
It is impossible for me to reject all that.
@GodsNotReal_: If a homosexual couple came to
your restaurant and wanted an ice cream sheet cake to celebrate their wedding
or baby shower, would you have any objections about selling it to them?
Kevin: I don't have a cake order
"test" for sexual lifestyle choices. As I stated in a previous
question, I do not assign labels for sexual identity. I perceive people through
the light of the grace of Christ. If someone ordered a cake that said
"Congrats Steve & Mark", how would I know if it is for a
promotion they both got at same company, a 20-year army buddy reunion, or
something in context you suggest? I really don't have time to quiz anyone about
his or her personal lifestyle choices. As instructed under the "do not
bear false witness" commandment, I just assume the best, most favorable,
construct on the issue. What I will not do is: Put profanity, pornography, or
other material I consider out of reasonable decorum...like racist slurs, etc on
a cake. That policy goes for anyone.
In the rare instance someone comes in and want to overtly shout their
lifestyle choices from the hilltops while ordering the cake. I would inform
them to keep it to themselves. If the customer happens to be a member of my
church, I would have a Christian duty to follow up for correction under Matthew
Chapter 18. Either way, they would be able to get the cake.
About 50% of our cake orders are online www.dqcakes.com,
so there is far less interaction, firsthand, than in the past, with customers
on this issue.
I've been in this restaurant system 25 years and no one has ever told me
their cake is for an event in the context you suggest. Once you buy the cake,
your cake to do whatever you want with it. Used for church event, great. Used
in context you suggest, great.
@GodsNotReal_: Are there any parts of the bible
you believe are metaphors or poetry, or do you believe that all passages are
literally history?
Kevin: The bible is the inerrant
Word of God. There are parables (earthly stories with heavenly meaning), in the
bible, mostly told by Jesus. There is "poetry" in the bible, like
Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, but the passages also have "literal"
meaning as well.
One thing to keep in mind is: Old Testament Ceremonial Law and
Traditions/covenants have been replaced by the New Testament covenant and
promise of salvation by the grace of Christ. Many of my local atheist friends
like to quote some of the more interesting Old Testament passages without
realizing, or understanding, this simple concept.
I strongly admonish "Christian" denominations that reject
Creation, for instance, to embrace evolution. If you reject the Creation
account, you reject the Fall of mankind into sin. That creates the basic issue:
If the Fall into sin never happened, why would you need Christ as your redeemer
from sin? Christ as your redeemer from sin is thee central conviction of
Christianity, without that, one fails to be a Christian. (One may act
Christian-like, but if you reject Christ as your redeemer from sin, you are not
Christian.) So my admonishment for "Christians" that do not take the
bible as inerrant Word of God is a serious one.
Proverbs 27:5
"Better is open rebuke
than hidden love."
than hidden love."
Atheists on the other hand, by
definition, already reject the bible and Christ. I would pray you would stop
doing that, but Christian love does require, if the love is truly sincere in
the grace of Christ, to encourage those, when possible, toward the absolute
truth of Jesus. Unlike the case of someone rejecting Christ as redeemer from
sin in church, which is a case of "correction", an atheist outside
the church should be "encouraged", rather than "corrected",
toward the grace of Christ. Many times I see Christians trying to
"correct", sometimes in a very non-Christian manner, those outside
the church toward Christ, rather than "encourage".
@GodsNotReal_: You said the Old Testament has been replaced by the New Testament
(answering Question 8). But in answering Question 7, you said you are
instructed by one of the Ten Commandments to not bear false witness. The Ten Commandments
were given to Moses in the Old Testament. It seems like you are cherry picking
parts of the OT you like and the parts of the OT you don't like you can say
have been replaced by the NT. There are many passages in the NT that tell us we
CANNOT ignore the OT, such as "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful
for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2
Timothy 3:16), "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for
the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" (Luke 16:17) "For
the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus
Christ" (John 1:17), and there's this very telling tale in Matthew 5:17-20
where Jesus says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell
you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least
stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished. Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these
commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of
heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great
in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness
surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly
not enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus just said that you can't get into
heaven because you're setting aside parts of the law. Not the least stroke of a
pen will disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Since
the Old Testament law still applies, how do you feel about killing gay
people, as directed by God in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man
has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads?"
Kevin: To be exact, I said, “One
thing to keep in mind is: Old Testament Ceremonial Law and Traditions/covenants
have been replaced by the New Testament covenant and promise of salvation by
the grace of Christ.”
There is a big difference between saying the Old Testament has been
completely replaced vs. Old Testament ceremonial law/traditions/covenants have
been replaced.
There are 2 parts to the Bible. Law and Gospel.
We are all under the Law in terms of God's perfect judgment for sin.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God.
Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one
who does good, not even one.
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
So we are all subject to the Law, whether you believe in God, or not.
Those that have sinned and fallen short of glory of God do not deserve to be in
his perfect presence eternally. (Perfection cannot exist with imperfection.) We
are all subject to sin and death because of the law.
Christians, have had their sins (imperfection) covered by the grace of
Jesus Christ. Christians no longer live under the Law, but live by grace.
because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives
life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be
righteousness for everyone who believes.
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by
faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we
may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law,
because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be
gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be
justified by faith.
[ Children of God ] Before the coming of this faith, we
were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to
come would be revealed.
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been
alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but
for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious,
for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
[ Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All ]
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the
realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices
repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to
worship.
So the Old Testament moral Law
(10 commandments) applies to unbelievers. Christians have been
set free from the Old Testament Law by faith in Christ and his resulting
grace. Christians use the Law as a guide and a mirror to measure how their
reflection of faith looks in action. The grace of Christ reflected
in action should not steal from your neighbor, bear false witness, commit
adultery, etc. Christians in the grace of Christ are not subject to the Law, but
free from it.
The Levitical Preisthood in Old Testament also had ceremonial law and
civil laws for the State of Israel. Those laws, that you
quoted above do not apply under New Testament grace.
To be succinct, those living under the grace of Christ, are free from
the Law (10 commandments), and want all to be saved through the
gospel. True Christians do not want anyone to die in
their sin and be separated from God’s grace eternally.
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell
you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin
Now a slave has no
permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.
Christians do not wish anyone to die as a slave to sin, but desire
everyone to be redeemed children of God.
You have been set free from sin
and have become slaves to righteousness.
As “slaves” to righteousness, we no longer follow Old Testament civil
and ceremonial law. If we did, we would again be slaves to sin
by carrying out Leviticus 20:13 civil law. Taking a life of a
lost sinner, for such an act, would violate the moral law (10
commandments). We would desire, as Christians, living in the
grace of Christ, the lost sinner to repent and be subject to grace.
When you were slaves to sin,
you were free from the control of righteousness.
But now that you have been set
free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to
holiness, and the result is eternal life.
The Spirit you received does not
make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you
received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
So you are no longer a slave,
but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.
As an heir to the kingdom, as
part of God’s family, we desire all to be part of the family and encourage
those to renounce their sin. This is a small summary why
ceremonial, and civil law, of Old testament does not apply anymore in the
covenant of Christ’s grace. The moral Law (10 commandments) do
not apply to those living in Christ’s grace either, but serve as a
guide, and a mirror, as to what Christian living looks like in
action. If we, as Christians, are violating the moral Law
constantly, we should examine ourselves whether we are really living in the
light of Christ’s grace.
For instance, if someone claims
to be Christian, but constantly steals from their neighbor, are they living in
Christ’s grace?
Similarly, if someone claims to
be Christian, but constantly practices sexual relations outside God’s design
for marriage, are they living in Christ’s grace?
If we, as Christians, desire to
constantly break the moral law and desire to not amend our sinful life and
ways, we are again slaves to sin and are outside God’s family.
[ Slaves
to Righteousness ] What then? Shall we sin because we are not
under the law but under grace? By no means!
Don’t you know that when you
offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you
obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience,
which leads to righteousness?
True faith in Christ understands
the covenant of grace, how the moral law (10 commandments) apply as a mirror and a guide, and that
Old Testament ceremonial and civil law no longer applies to those under grace.
This is just a summary treatise
on topic. If you have a further specific question on Law and
Gospel, I am very willing to discuss in more detail.
@GodsNotReal_: There are parts of the bible that
contradict other parts, or contradict what we observe in the physical,
scientific world. It seems bizarre that a simple question like "Is _______
moral?" would require a multi-paragraph explanation (see previous question
and answer) using scripture if scripture were actually written by an
all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful deity. Taking it a step further, some
Christians interpret the bible to say that homosexuality and abortion (eg.) are
morally wrong, while other Christians find evidence within scripture to say
it's ok. But the one thing that all Christians have in common is that they all
believe they have the correct interpretation and that other
Christians have been misled, and they all believe they have a close, personal
relationship with Jesus. Now, it seems if you and I both have a close
relationship with a guy named John Smith who lives in Milwaukee, we could both
ask him "Is it wrong to have sex before I'm married?" and we could
both give identical answers, because John Smith is a real person and we can
both actually have a two-way conversation with him. But when people talk to
Jesus, they all get different answers, and everybody ignores the answers other
people got. How can you square all this? How do you know you are right when I
can find dozens of Christians who talked to Jesus and completely disagree with
you?
Kevin: When it comes to
"contradiction" you will have to narrow down to what specifics you
would be talking about. I assume you will pick the obvious
global issue, "How can a loving God punish people by throwing them into
hell?"
The short answer to that
is: God is perfect. Perfection requires imperfection be
cast out or separated, or it spoils the perfection. Or in other terms,
separating the wicked from the righteous.
Matthew 13:49: This
is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the
wicked from the righteous
John 15:6: If
you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers;
such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
We are all depraved by nature and
imperfect, deserving of everlasting punishment, including me.
It is the grace of Christ that saves us as a free gift from God, that is what
turns us from wickedness and makes us righteous. As sinners bound
for hell, we are free to reject that gift of grace from Christ for forgiveness
of sins. God's Perfection requires us to be free to reject
grace. Rejection keeps us wicked, without righteousness. The
imperfect cannot be made (forced) righteous to be with the eternally
perfect, if the imperfect/wicked want to reject the Grace, that makes us
perfect in Christ, that is where the judgement comes in. One cannot
be made righteous through Christ if one rejects the idea they do not need to be
made righteous.
Hell is merely a place where God
withholds all his good and perfect attributes. It is a place of
eternal fire, pain and punishment, without mercy, without hope, without
love. It is reserved for the devil, fallen angels and those that follow
them. Hope, mercy and love is from God.
In another way, if God did not
throw evil, into hell, that means there is no eternal punishment for
evil/imperfection. Wouldn't you find that unjust? No
punishment for Hitler? Stalin? Genges Khan? Chairman Mao? The
most wicked and righteous end up in same place eternally? I can't
think of anything more unjust in terms of world view.
As far as Christians disagreeing
on issues like abortion, sex before marriage, homosexuality,
etc. If you find me a "Christian" that says
abortion, adultery (sex outside of marriage), and homosexuality is
"OK", I will show you a Christian that rejects the Bible as the
inerrant Word of God. Can you openly reject the teachings of
Christ and still be a "Christian"? It is hard to
reconcile a "Christian" label for anyone that openly embraces sin as
"alright".
Many church denominations do
openly reject the bible and re-write what it says to justify sin.
The is an imperfect mankind problem, not a problem with God. His
word is clear, concise, and unchanging. The basic problem is: sin
draws you further from the grace of Christ, not closer. If I
say it is OK to steal from my neighbor openly, am I living in Christ by doing
that? Of course not. Those with true faith in Christ desire
to reject sin.
If you need the passages that
rejects all 3 of these things (abortion, sex outside of marriage,
homosexuality), I can provide them.
@GodsNotReal_: What is a fair minimum wage to pay a high school graduate, working 40
hours a week, and living on their own?
Kevin: There is no universal
answer. Each adult has different skills, different ability,
and different production. I have an adult that can multi-task
3 things at once and make it look easy. I had an 18 year old
"adult" last year that could not even make change when the register
told her what the change was and had to be constantly supervised, because
even when trained on something, just could not pick it up. (Mainly
because she did not want to "pick it up".). My
adult pay rate is between $9.50-$13.50 an hour. The
"adult" I reference above that could not make simple change, was a
single mom, 18, that I started at $8.50, (with a promise to go $9.50 when out
of training) but it was clear she did not even have the skill to earn that
$8.50/hr pay. She ended up quitting within 2 weeks because she
could "not handle it". (The real answer was: she wanted
the easy way out, and she was realizing that this job was not the
"easy way out". When I insisted she stick with it.... She
told me that she literally preferred to collect welfare and find a
different boyfriend to support her.) "Fairness" in pay
depends on job skill, willingness to be available, attitude, ability to work
well under pressure, and ability to get things done without
supervision. The higher the minimum wage, the less opportunity the
18 year old I described will have because at $10, $12, or $15 an hour minimum
wage... she will not even get the opportunity at a higher minimum
wage. Lack of ability to make change making will be dismissed
outright with elevated expectations at higher pay rates.
@GodsNotReal_: Who are you voting for in 2016 Presidential Election and why? And what
do you think about Romans 13 which says that all governing authorities are
directly chosen by god and whoever rebels against them rebels against god? Do
you ever complain when the opposing candidate wins election over your favored
candidate?
Kevin: We are electing a
political leader for President, not a religious leader. None
of the presidential candidates are qualified to be a good Christian
leader. I originally liked the Libertarian but his position
on foreign policy and abortion were abhorrent to me. I
was contemplating writing in Evan McMullin, but that would have been a vote for
Hillary Clinton in our state. I, with great reluctance, and
tremendous reservation, voted for Donald Trump because of who gets
appointed to the Federal Judiciary and USSC. Judicial
appointments are so important, I had to overlook Trump's many
flaws. Hillary Clinton will appoint judges who support
pre-born baby killing. For me, that is a big issue, and why I was
so disappointed that this Libertarian candidate was very pro-baby
killing. (Past Libertarians have been pro-Life).
Governing authorities are chosen
by God and we should show them appropriate respect. However, when
governing authorities oppose God's law, for example, when government condones
killing pre born babies, we are to oppose that openly.
"Opposition" should be done in a civil manner.
Openly opposing the sin, but not hating the sinner in the process.
Do I complain about who
wins? Probably. My complaints are usually 99% of the
time about the policy being advocated and not the
person. I'm certain Barack Obama is a nice person, but I do
have criticism for many of his failed 20th Century socialist
policies. I don't perceive open criticism as being rebellious,
only exercising the Constitutional blessings God has granted us in this
republic.
As a side note, I hope Hillary
Clinton does win because it is easier for me to oppose liberal policies from
her than it will be to oppose liberal policies of Donald
Trump. Donald Trump has a potential of embracing many liberal
policies, and it can be difficult to criticize the one you voted
for. I will criticize Trump for any liberal policies, but
recognize it is more difficult to do when I voted for him.
@GodsNotReal_: Should evolution, creation, or both be taught in public school science
curriculum?
Kevin: They are both
religions. Creation is from a Christian FAITH perspective
that everything was created by Almighty God in 6 days.
Evolution is the godless perspective, which has the more absurd proposition of
faith: that everything came from nothing. Evolution requires
a bigger leap of faith than Christianity.
If we are going to teach the
godless Evolution religion in schools, we should give Creation appropriate
equal time.
I suggest reading "Darwin's
Doubt" by Dr. Stephen Meyer. In it, he points out that even
Darwin acknowledged the problem of the sudden explosion of life in the Cambrian
fossil layer. An issue no Darwinist has resolved to this day.
Creation completely makes sense to resolve the Cambrian layer explosion
science problem.
If Creation, or ID, is
addressed as a solution to this obvious scientific problem, I'm good with
that. However, Darwin disciples are so fervent in their
godless Darwinist evangelism, they tend to ignore the Cambrian layer problem,
even Darwin himself recognized as a basic flaw in his flimsy theory.
Suggested reading:
I oppose the current Freedom from
Religion Foundation position that we need to censor in all public
schools to the obvious solution to explain the sudden Cambrian layer
life explosion. However, I will support wiping the Evolution religion from
schools if we are going to censor Creationism, or ID...to insure all religions,
especially godless liberal religions, are treated as equally as poor as
Christianity in the public square.
To see the poor treatment of
Christians, and Christian perspectives, in the public square, please
download the following report:
@GodsNotReal_: I frequently discover that when somebody opposes teaching the
scientifically accurate version of the theory of evolution that they are unable
to correctly define two terms. Can you please tell me what you think the
definition of the following terms are? (Hint: There is a right answer, and many
wrong answers, so if you don't know, feel free to use a source of your choice
and if you do consult an external source, please cite it).
A) Scientific Theory -
B) Evolution -
Kevin: I'm willing to define
"theory" for you as "contemplation or speculation";
"guess or conjecture" at:
"Scientific"
cannot be put in front of "Evolution Theory" because science has not
been able to explain the Cambrian layer fossil explosion. Scientist
Dr. Stephen Meyer has completely destroyed Evolution theory as acceptable
science. Even Darwin had his doubts about his guess, or
speculation, in his own book introducing his guesswork of formation of life on
earth.
You may
consult: www.darwinsdoubt.com.
Darwins's
own doubt about his theory actually delivers the scientific proof for Creation
in the Cambrian layer explosion. To ignore the Cambrian layer
explosion evidence for Creation would be denying science in favor of the
"Evolution faith".
Evolution
is a religion these days with passionate religious zealots running around
preaching very marginal speculation of how the world came about from a godless
perspective.
People are free to
practice their evolution religion and misrepresent it as science, but that
religion should be subject to the equal (mis)treatment under the law
Chrsitians are subject to under the law.
[NOTE FROM EDITOR: As the question states, there are certainly right
and wrong answers to this question. Kevin was advised that his answers were
both wrong and we exchanged several emails in which I tried to clarify the
question and get him to give a correct answer, but he was not able, despite his
best efforts, to successfully provide correct definitions. For those interested
the correct definitions are as follows: A scientific theory is
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on
a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and
experiment. Such fact-supported theories are
not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. Biological evolution is the change in genetic composition of
a population over successive generations,
which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, genetic drift, or mutation.]
@GodsNotReal_: If the federal minimum wage were raised, let's say to $12.50/hour, how
would that change your business?
Kevin: 1.) I would predict I
would fire about 1/3 of my staff. About 10
employees. Maybe more.
2.) I would stop
many production processes in store. (Such
as: making dilly bars, ice cream cakes, ice cream pizzas in store in favor
of the machine made manufactured product, that we can order in from distributor.)
Customers like in-store made dilly bars and ice cream cakes, but $12.50 an hour
minimum wage would make it far more efficient to let central manufacturer
facility make the item. Many DQ franchisees already utilize this
option in labor markets where it is very difficult to find good
employees. Pre-manufactured products have long been an
option in our system, but I resist in order to provide more local employment
for entry level teenagers.
3.) I would heavily invest in
labor saving technology. Examples would include: Self-serve
customer order Kiosks in lobby. Automatic drive-thru greeter.
Mandatory in store computer kiosk cake ordering. I would also farm
out store processes and tasks to 3rd party providers that can do it more efficiently.
Cutting non-busy restaurant open hours is also an option. Some
restaurant systems are investing heavily in completely automating
kitchens. If that were to come to pass, I would be willing to
invest as much as $100,000 into technology into my location if it
meant cutting 5000 hours of in store labor at $12.50/hour.
4.) Substantial price increases would
follow. Some states did pass minimum wage to these
approximate levels yesterday. Those DQ operators in those
states have been discussing what to do. Discussion has
been that almost $2 would have to be added to price of burger to compensate for
this. What does that do to demand? That is
the unknown wild card in the question. Price increases hurt poor
and middle class the most.
Raising the minimum wage to these
levels destroys opportunity for those with poor/limited job skills, as the
example of the 18 girl who could not make change in my previous question
answer. At $12.50 an hour, I cannot afford to have patience to teach
basic job skills. Employees will be expected to have
them. I also have had in past, disabled workers make dilly
bars at minimum wage because it is an easy thing to do, but it is
repetitive. They did a good job, but because of their
disability, they just are slow at doing it. The higher the
minimum wage, the less opportunity that disabled worker will have.
At $12.50 an hour, I would expect production of 200- 300 dilly bars an
hour. The disabled worker I referenced could only make about 100 an
hour. At $12.50 an hour it would take $25 (excluding
the cost of employer taxes) in salary to get 200 dilly bar production from this
worker. If a non-disabled worker can do 200 dilly
bars for $12.50, why would I hire the person with
disability? At $7.25 an hour, I would be providing some
charity since net cost would be $15/hour for this disabled worker to do 200
dillys at current minimum wage.
I'm a charitable guy, but if I can save $12.50 an
hour on 2000 labor hours a year by passing on the disabled worker opportunity,
that money is better steered toward other charitable external activity the
community can actually see.
@GodsNotReal_: What are two things you think will change in a positive way with a Trump
presidency, and what are two things you don't like about it?
Kevin: Trump presidency immediate
positives:
1.) Respect for law enforcement.
Obama has been destructive to law enforcement and empowered criminals with his
knee jerk assumption all officer force is bad. Some incidents
deserve officer punishment, but Obama has flipped the narrative portraying all
law enforcement force as evil. This has empowered criminals in
black communities and left these communities worse off in terms of
crime. Trump will change this failed liberal narrative.
2.)
Dealing with illegal immigration. This is a national security
danger and Trump will be setting the tone in terms of making sure immigrants
are legal, and intend to do us no harm with proper checks. I
look forward to more expedient exportation of criminals and those that violate
the law of U.S. I support more LEGAL immigration than
currently allowed and I think Trump will as well, providing there are
reasonable checks. Obama has had an open door policy, without
proper checks, opening the dood for Islamic terrorists.
2 Things that I will not like
about Trump Presidency:
1.) Trump will
dismantle Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I like this
agency and what it does. I don't like CFPB stand
on arbitration clauses, however. I think arbitration can be a
very valuable tool for consumers to defeat debt collection lawsuits,
having done it about 10 years ago, very successfully, when my business ran
into financial trouble. Other than that, I think CFPB has done some
good things to reign in debt colectors, big bank practices, junk debt buyers,
modernizing TCPA rules, modernizing FDCPA rules, etc. I'm very
Elizabeth Warren on this topic. I think arbitration clauses
will stick around, which can be good for consumers, thanks to Trump (I think
the Plaintiff class action bar position on this can be bad for
consumers). However, I lament the CFPB being taken apart on
other issues.
2.)
Crony Capitalism. Trump picking winners and
losers. Obama did it all the time and I hated
that. I will dislike it as much as when Trump does
it. The one positive is that Trump may not foolishly
spend taxpayer money on stupid things like Solyndra. Trump
seems like he may use tax credits and regulation instead. A
step up from Obama, but still a problem if it is targeted for only one
company.
[NOTE FROM EDITOR: Since the
conclusion of this interview, Kevin and I have become friends on Facebook.
Though we've never met in person, I continue to discuss religious politics with
him from time to time.]
Comments
Post a Comment