Christians Hand Out Cupcakes

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, you are condoning the message.

How so? It's not my message. I'm simply there to play my guitar for money.

It doesn't matter whether you are playing for money or for free.
You are condoning the event, and by implication you are condoning the message of the event, simply by playing at the event.

Neither you nor the people that hired you are spreading the gospel through your playing secular songs at a "church" event.

We are a big regional draw. If we play at our local concert venue we bring in about 700-1000 people every time. If we bring people to a church event would you think of us bringing people to the message of the speaker, us drawing attention away from the message, or neither?

What makes you think the "church" is actually preaching the gospel when they hire people to play secular music instead of Christian music?

 

[shagster01]

It doesn't matter whether you are playing for money or for free.
You are condoning the event, and by implication you are condoning the message of the event, simply by playing at the event.

I'm condoning the music, which is my part of the event. I'm am not condoning everything that is going on at the event.

What makes you think the "church" is actually preaching the gospel when they hire people to play secular music instead of Christian music?

Well, for example, one was a "love Prom" put on by the church at the church as a sort of prom for special needs people who never got to experience their own prom. A speaker shared a short message about God's love and the like, and then the dance started. Who wants to dance to Christian music at a prom?

 

[The Barbarian]

Anna writes:

Oh, look. A mob.

Well, yes, after you spread some loon bait.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm condoning the music, which is my part of the event. I'm am not condoning everything that is going on at the event.

You are condoning the purpose of the event.

Well, for example, one was a "love Prom" put on by the church at the church as a sort of prom for special needs people who never got to experience their own prom. A speaker shared a short message about God's love and the like, and then the dance started. Who wants to dance to Christian music at a prom?

You still haven't convinced me that the church is promoting the gospel.
I have to wonder how Christian a church is that would host a modern American mating ritual with secular music.

 

[Dialogos]

This is the dumbest part of the whole article:

“Ludwig’s protest is another clear reminder that the closed-minded Christians that are demanding that they be allowed to refuse service to gay people because of their Christian faith have no standing.”

What does this even mean?

A pastor of a liberal denomination decides to bake some rainbow colored cupcakes for some homosexuals at a gay bar and that single handedly dismantles the First Amendment and demonstrates that Christians who object to participating in gay marriages on the basis of their faith and religious conscience “have no standing.”

That’s just lazy thinking.

Just more sloganeering.

:doh:

I suppose the author would conclude that if some liberal Jewish deli owner started to serve BLT’s to its hungry non-Jewish patrons that this one act would invalidate the rights of all the other, more conservative, Jewish deli owners to keep their delis Kosher, right?

:nono:

Of course not!

The fact that some liberal Jewish Deli serves a mean BLT does not obligate all Jewish deli owners to abandon their commitment to keeping Kosher. In the same way, the fact that some liberal Christian pastors abandon what the bible says about homosexuality does not obligate all Christians to do the same.

They represent a small minority…

So?

“Broad is the way”…. Says Jesus in Matthew 7.

Seeing other's compromise their "said" faith is not something new in Christianity.

…in a religion that is slowly, but surely changing its mind about gay rights and same-sex marriage. As times change, it’s not surprising that some people will have a problem with progress.

A standard error among liberals, equating societal change with progress.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tried to blame the backlash to Indiana’s anti-gay law on the “militant gay community.”

You mean the kind of gay activists that will drive past 4 gay friendly bakeries - in order to get to the one bakery reputed to be owned by a Christian that does not believe in so called "gay marriage" - hoping to solicit the proprietor's refusal so that they can report him to the thought police for discrimination?

Yea, I think Mike has it about right.

It would be supremely gratifying to watch him squirm as he tries to explain away fellow Christians like Ludwig.

:rotfl:

Lafayette Avenue Baptist Church is a gay friendly church in a so called “open and affirming” denomination (PCUSA). There isn't a whole lot of explaining that needs to be done.

Liberal Churches in liberal denominations tend to care very little about what the bible actually says regarding these matters and are content to determine church doctrine by licking their index finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the current cultural wind is blowing.

“Pastor” Ludwig is just doing what liberal Christians have always done. We are way past the need to squirm and explain what liberal churches are doing. They can do what they wish with their rainbow colored cupcakes.

Friendship with the world is still enmity toward God.

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[PureX]

A pastor of a liberal denomination decides to bake some rainbow colored cupcakes for some homosexuals at a gay bar and that single handedly dismantles the First Amendment and demonstrates that Christians who object to participating in gay marriages on the basis of their faith and religious conscience “have no standing.”

Commercial discrimination against minority citizens is not a "free speech" issue. Therefor, the people that choose to do so have no legal standing.

Just more sloganeering.

Actually, no, it's not just a slogan. Those who wish to discriminate against others for religious reasons really do not have any legal standing in New York, where the giveaway that the article is about, is occurring.

Seeing other's compromise their "said" faith is not something new in Christianity.

A standard error among liberals, equating societal change with progress.

Well, there are lots of OT laws you routinely ignore because they have become both absurd and illegal in the thousands of years since they were considered reasonable by the ancient Jews. So I guess that makes you a liberal, too.

Liberal Churches in liberal denominations tend to care very little about what the bible actually says regarding these matters and are content to determine church doctrine by licking their index finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the current cultural wind is blowing.

Yes, much the same as with Christian bigots who also ignore the draconian OT admonishments that they don't like while holding steadfastly to those that they think justify their bigotry and hatred toward gays, and liberals, and atheists, and anyone else who doesn't cow-tow to their self-assumed divine authority and righteousness.

Friendship with the world is still enmity toward God.

Because God hates the world, and everyone on it? Right? Well, everyone but you, and those who agree with everything you say and do.

 

[Granite]

You are condoning the purpose of the event.




You still haven't convinced me that the church is promoting the gospel.
I have to wonder how Christian a church is that would host a modern American mating ritual with secular music.

:rotfl:

Stick, meet mud. You've managed to comically miss the point.

 

[Dialogos]

Commercial discrimination against minority citizens is not a "free speech" issue. Therefor, the people that choose to do so have no legal standing.

Laws that compel people to act contrary to their deeply held religious convictions, or unduly burden their religious practice are unconstitutional (a violation of the 1st Amend.).

But that's not really what the author was saying was it? No, He was saying that one pastor's willingness to hand out cupcakes somehow "corrects" the decision of the owners in the Pizza Parlor in Indiana to refuse to cater same sex weddings.

(Which is a little ridiculous anyway, who cater's their wedding with pizza?)

Actually, no, it's not just a slogan. Those who wish to discriminate against others for religious reasons really do not have any legal standing in New York, where the giveaway that the article is about, is occurring.

They have the standing of the first amendment, unfortunately our current judicial and executive climate is willing to overlook constitutional rights in favor of granting special rights to self identified minorities (even though who you choose to have sex with shouldn't really be a protected class).

Well, there are lots of OT laws you routinely ignore because they have become both absurd and illegal in the thousands of years since they were considered reasonable by the ancient Jews.

:nono:

Wrong. I don't ignore any of them. I consider them either extant, fulfilled historically or fulfilled eschatologically.

This objection is really an objection that comes from a profound ignorance of biblical theology.

For example. I am free to wear cloths of mixed thread because the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been abolished through the cross. Prior to this, God commanded that Israel not "mix" all sorts of things as reminders that they were to be desperate and holy from the other people.

So I guess that makes you a liberal, too.

Umm, no, that makes me a New Testament believer in Jesus rather than someone who is an Old Testament Jew.

But, to the authors point. Does a Jewish deli have the right to observe OT law and refuse to serve BLTs in his deli?

Yes, much the same as with Christian bigots who also ignore the draconian OT admonishments that they don't like...

You are parading your ignorance of Old Testament theology here and then using it as a pretext for your a fallacious argument.

...while holding steadfastly to those that they think justify their bigotry and hatred toward gays, and liberals, and atheists, and anyone else who doesn't cow-tow to their self-assumed divine authority and righteousness.

Christians who believe what the bible says about homosexuality hold steadfast to those faith principles they believe deeply to be God's word. It is a total canard to call their fidelity to their belief "hatred." Most of us don't hate gay people in any honest definition of the word, we love them enough to warn them of God's coming wrath. We want what is genuinely best for them. And what is best for them is not to nurture their rebellion toward God but to repent and find that God's plan for their sexuality is better, fuller, happier, and more joyous than giving themselves over to a lie.

Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.

But I can understand why liberals routinely employ this tactic. Projecting "hate" certainly makes it easier to demonize conservative Christians for their beliefs, and it makes it easier to justify your own bigotry and hatred against conservative Christians for their beliefs, especially if you don't have to wrestle with why they believe what they believe, but it is still a canard.

Finally, I'm not hearing anyone saying, "gay marriage is wrong because I don't like it" from pulpits, are you?

I am hearing, "gay marriage is wrong because God's word forbids it."

But I understand why the liberal talking points always distill down to false accusations of "hatred" and "bigotry" because it is much easier to castigate someone for their religion if you don't have to wrestle with the genuine source of their belief and can hate them for the "hatred" you project onto them.

That's why most liberals don't really want to wrestle with the applicable biblical passages the conservative Christians turn to for guidance on these matters, they just want to point the finger at the ones quoting them and accuse them of "hatred".

If I had a dime for every time someone accused me of "hiding behind" those biblical passages....

I'm not hiding behind any of them but I am proud to stand on them because they are God's Word and I, for one, am not ashamed of them.

Liberals like Jameson Parker can't admit that our objections are rooted in our faith because if they did, they would have to at least admit that the conservative Christians have legitimate, constitutionally protected religious reasons for their convictions.

Because God hates the world, and everyone on it? Right?

Huh?

:idunno:

Nope.

Because...

"You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. (Jam 4:4 ESV)"

Because.... those of us who stand on what God's word says about homosexuality would rather serve God than receive the approval of the world for what we belief.

We'd rather be hated for what we believe than be loved for compromising our faith.

We'd rather our doctrine be determined by God's word than by pop culture.

 

[PureX]

Laws that compel people to act contrary to their deeply held religious convictions, or unduly burden their religious practice are unconstitutional (a violation of the 1st Amend.).

No, they aren't. Not at all. You can "deeply hold" any belief you want to in this country. But you cannot act on them in denial of the rights of others. The first amendment does not allow anyone to deny and abuse the rights of other people. You are simply wrong in your interpretation of the the law in this regard.

Wrong. Period.

But that's not really what the author was saying was it? No, He was saying that one pastor's willingness to hand out cupcakes somehow "corrects" the decision of the owners in the Pizza Parlor in Indiana to refuse to cater same sex weddings.

Well, it does "correct" the decision to practice commercial bigotry because their gesture points out that such commercial bigotry is illegal in New York, and is not engaged in nor supported by these New York Christians.

They have the standing of the first amendment, unfortunately our current judicial and executive climate is willing to overlook constitutional rights in favor of granting special rights to self identified minorities (even though who you choose to have sex with shouldn't really be a protected class).

Once again, you are simply wrong about this. The first amendment does not allow anyone to deny or abuse the rights of others for the purpose of "free speech". It never has intended that, and it does not intend that, now.

Wrong. I don't ignore any of them. I consider them either extant, fulfilled historically or fulfilled eschatologically.

Oh, I'm sure you have your excuses and justifications, just as those other "liberals" do, but the bottom line is that you ignore the religious laws that you know are obsolete and ridiculous, while you obsess on those that ratify your disgust of homosexuals, and others. As any good Christian bigot would naturally do. And as they have done for many centuries.

This objection is really an objection that comes from a profound ignorance of biblical theology.

Blah, blah, blah. Of course it's all your interpretation or its all wrong. Every bigot says that. And every bigot believes it. Because that's the whole point of being a bigot: being more right than everyone else. Being superior to everyone else. And ultimately being in control of everyone else.

For example. I am free to wear cloths of mixed thread because the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been abolished through the cross. Prior to this, God commanded that Israel not "mix" all sorts of things as reminders that they were to be desperate and holy from the other people.

Blah, blah, blah, … you excuse what you want to excuse, and you retain what you want to retain. Just like every other "liberal" Christian does. The only real difference is who you want to make suffer for it.

Umm, no, that makes me a New Testament believer in Jesus rather than someone who is an Old Testament Jew.

Or, … just another bigoted "liberal" justifying what you want to believe, and rejecting what you don't.

You are parading your ignorance of Old Testament theology here and then using it as a pretext for your a fallacious argument.

Of course I am. Only your interpretation of the Bible is the right one. So any disagreement on my part MUST BE FALLACIOUS. How could it possibly be otherwise, since you cannot possibly be wrong?

Christians who believe what the bible says hold steadfast to those faith principles they hold deeply as God's word.

And Christian bigots hold steadfastly to what the Bible says that promotes those principals that justify their presumption of their own superiority over those they seek to diminish and despise. Like the gays and the "liberals" and the atheists, etc.,.

It is a total canard to call their fidelity to their belief "hatred." Most of us don't hate gay people, we love them enough to warn them of God's coming wrath. We want what is genuinely best for them.

And being bigots, you naturally assume that you know what's best for them, because you're knowledge of such things is superior to theirs; even about their own lives! And being so much more superior, and so loving toward them, an all, it's then OK for you to want to punish them and deny them their rights as equal citizens when they dare to disagree with your superior wisdom about God, and life, and sin, and punishment, and, well … everything. Isn't that right? You don't hate them, you just find that they deserve to be punished if they dare to disagree with you, is all. Because you are their superior in every way, and by God's command. Isn't that right?

And what is best for them is not to nurture their rebellion toward God but to repent and find that God's plan for their sexuality is better, fuller, happier, and more joyous than giving themselves over to a lie.

Because being their superior in every way, YOU know what's best for them, regardless of what they think. And so you should have the right, and even the obligation, to punish them for their sinfulness, as though you were God's own right hand. Because you ARE sitting on God's own right hand, after all. Isn't that right?

Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.

That's right. You're their friend when you 'wound them', and insult them, and despise them, and punish them … not their enemy!

I'm not hearing anyone saying, "gay marriage is wrong because I don't like it" from pulpits, are you?

Well, no. That would be too honest, and everyone would then see it for what it is. The homophobia has to be couched in religious righteousness so that people won't see it for what it really is: just a silly visceral knee-jerk reaction that manifests itself as a desire to hurt other people.

 

[Dialogos]

No, they aren't. Not at all. You can "deeply hold" any belief you want to in this country. But you cannot act on them in denial of the rights of others.

Two big problems with your analysis here.

First, the notion that same sex marriage is a constitutional right is an invention of the liberal mind. There isn't a single shred of evidence that the founding father's ever concieved that such a right existed.

Second, even if (and probably when) the kangaroo court decides to write the same sex marriage into the constitution by judicial fiat (which is what is likely to happen in June) the first amendment should still protect the religious rights of proprietors. A Jewish deli is not "denying" the rights of an atheist to eat bacon if the owner refuses to make BLTs in the deli. If the atheist wants a BLT, he can go someplace that has no religious compulsions against preparing bacon.

Nobody would conclude that the atheist's right to eat bacon trumps the religious rights of the deli owner and yet this is exactly what is being demanded of bible believing Christians. For bible believers, the free exercise of religion gives way to the demands of a same sex couple who want the right to demand a cake and the right to compel someone to make it.

The first amendment does not allow anyone to deny and abuse the rights of other people.

Precisely.

And this is why the first amendment does not allow the law to compel someone to participate in a same sex ceremony if doing so is religiously offensive to the proprietor of a business, even if that business is in a wedding related industry.

You are simply wrong in your interpretation of the the law in this regard.

Wrong. Period.

:chuckle:

That's an interesting way to avoid discussing the issue logically.

Once again, you are simply wrong about this. The first amendment does not allow anyone to deny or abuse the rights of others for the purpose of "free speech". It never has intended that, and it does not intend that, still.

Since we are talking about constitutional intent, can you point out where in the constitution we can find the right to same sex marriage?

:think:

Oh, I'm sure you have your excuses and justifications, just as those other "liberals" do, but the bottom line is that you ignore the religious laws that you know are obsolete and ridiculous,...

You can be willingly ignorant about these matters if you like but your ignorance of old testament theology does not erase the fact that there are clear, biblical reasons for why new testament believers don't practice many old testament laws.

...while you obsess on those that ratify your disgust of homosexuals, and others.

You should stop practicing armchair psychology. You aren't any good at it.

First, I happen to know people who struggle with same sex attraction who are just as fervent in their belief that same sex marriage is sinful as I am. Your attempt to broad brush all of us who believe the bible on this matter fails miserably.

Second, as a non-believer, years ago, I affirmed the perversions of my gay friends and held to a very relativistic attitude about the issue so your attempt at armchair psychoanalysis fails again.

Finally, it doesn't matter what I find disgusting or appealing, it matters what God says He finds disgusting and it is clear that God finds same sex behavior "detestable." For Christians who are really being conformed to the image of Christ, we find that what disgusts us and what appeals to us changes as we grow in Christ.

As any good Christian bigot would naturally do. And as they have done for many centuries.

Angry name calling, It saddens me that you have stooped to this so soon.

:down:

Blah, blah, blah. Of course it's all your interpretation or its all wrong.

Do you have a better interpretation?

Let's hear it.

I wanted the conservative Christians to be wrong on this so I could continue to enjoy the approval of the world since I worked with a number of openly gay people and standing firm on this issue was much harder than just caving to the pressure of "celebrating alternative lifestyles."

But God's word doesn't bend to what I want, it beckons me to bend what I want to what God says is true.

Every bigot says that. And every bigot believes it. Because that's the whole point of being a bigot: being more right than everyone else.

Ad Hominem attack, not worth responding to.

Being superior to everyone else. And ultimately being in control of everyone else.

Explain to me how politely refusing to make someone a wedding cake is an attempt to control everyone else...?

Blah, blah, blah, …you excuse what you want to excuse, and you retain what you want to retain. Just like every other "liberal" Christian does.

:chuckle:

You're bating and I'm not taking the bait.

I'm not "excusing" God's word. God's word doesn't need excusing as if you are the judge and God's word is on trial. I am not ashamed of Christ or His word.

Are you ashamed of what God's word says on this topic PureX?

The only real difference is who you want to make suffer for it.

Explain to me how asking a gay "couple" to find someone else to take pictures of their ceremony causes undo "suffering"...?

Of course I am. Only your interpretation of the Bible is the right one.

Still waiting on your interpretation.

Its funny, this argument gets trotted out regularly but the only ones actually explaining and defending interpretations of these scriptures are the conservative Christians.

The liberal Christians eventually run away from those discussions or bypass them altogether.

So any disagreement on my part MUST BE FALLACIOUS. How could it possibly be otherwise, since you cannot possibly be wrong?

Would you like to demonstrate where I err in my interpretation?

Be my guest.

Just for you, I've created a thread for you to do so.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4285108#post4285108

But lets not lose focus.

Am I free to interpret the bible the way I do?

Am I free to allow my actions to be harmonious with my interpretations?

Are Jews free to interpret the Old Testament to forbid the preparation of bacon? Are they free to allow their restaurants to be harmonious with those interpretations?

And Christian bigots hold steadfastly to what the Bible says that promotes those principals that justify their presumption of their own superiority over those they seek to diminish and despise.

You really stink at armchair psychology.

Like the gays and the "liberals" and the atheists, etc.,.
And being bigots, you naturally assume that you know what's best for them,

Umm, no.

I presume to know what God says is best for all of us. Religions make those kinds of claims PureX.

Islam does, Buddhism does, Hinduism does, Christianity does..

Your statements here have just condemned anyone who holds to any religion of bigotry by virtue of their claiming to know what God says is best for His creation.

because you're knowledge of such things is superior to theirs;

If I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind...

Do you generally hold on to an opinion when you think that your opinion is the inferior alternative on a topic?

...even about their own lives! And being so much more superior, and so loving toward them, an all, it's then OK for you to want to punish them...

I don't want to punish them for their wicked choices, that's God's job, I just don't want to be forced to make a cake for the ceremony or take pictures.

...and deny them their rights as equal citizens when they dare to disagree with your superior wisdom about God, and life, and sin, and punishment, and, well … everything.

Take a breath.

Are you done ranting?

Isn't that right? You don't hate them, you just find that they deserve to be punished if they dare to disagree with you, is all. Because you are their superior in every way, and by God's command. Isn't that right?

This has degenerated into an intellectual tantrum, your responses are more Ad Hominem than logical argument.

 

[TracerBullet]

They have the standing of the first amendment, unfortunately our current judicial and executive climate is willing to overlook constitutional rights in favor of granting special rights to self identified minorities (even though who you choose to have sex with shouldn't really be a protected class).

Minorities are minorities even if you don't want them to be and they are protected by the constitution whether you like it or not.

Wrong. I don't ignore any of them. I consider them either extant, fulfilled historically or fulfilled eschatologically.

This objection is really an objection that comes from a profound ignorance of biblical theology.

For example. I am free to wear cloths of mixed thread because the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been abolished through the cross. Prior to this, God commanded that Israel not "mix" all sorts of things as reminders that they were to be desperate and holy from the other people.

This is cherry picking and nothing more.

Umm, no, that makes me a New Testament believer in Jesus rather than someone who is an Old Testament Jew.

But, to the authors point. Does a Jewish deli have the right to observe OT law and refuse to serve BLTs in his deli?

What a stupid analogy. Does a hardware store have the right to refuse to fill medical prescriptions? Business have a set product line period. Your Jewish deli owner doesn't serve bacon to anyone and that is just fine to everyone. That same deli owner doesn't get to deny serving something on the deli's menu to members of a minority.

Christians who believe what the bible says about homosexuality hold steadfast to those faith principles they believe deeply to be God's word. It is a total canard to call their fidelity to their belief "hatred."

No one is calling anyone's belief hatred. Attempts to legalize discrimination however is hatred and holding a bible while you discriminate doesn't change hate into something else

Most of us don't hate gay people in any honest definition of the word, we love them enough to warn them of God's coming wrath. We want what is genuinely best for them. And what is best for them is not to nurture their rebellion toward God but to repent and find that God's plan for their sexuality is better, fuller, happier, and more joyous than giving themselves over to a lie.

If someone directed this vile statement at you and your family you wouldn't pretend for one second that it was anything but hate

 

[TracerBullet]

Two big problems with your analysis here.

First, the notion that same sex marriage is a constitutional right is an invention of the liberal mind. There isn't a single shred of evidence that the founding father's ever concieved that such a right existed.

Yet it is a right just as interracial marriage is a right that the founding fathers didn't encode in the constitution.

Second, even if (and probably when) the kangaroo court decides to write the same sex marriage into the constitution by judicial fiat (which is what is likely to happen in June) the first amendment should still protect the religious rights of proprietors. A Jewish deli is not "denying" the rights of an atheist to eat bacon if the owner refuses to make BLTs in the deli. If the atheist wants a BLT, he can go someplace that has not religious compulsions against preparing bacon.

Again with the stupid analogy

Wanting to discriminate against a minority isn't a protected right. Everyone is equal under the law even people you don't happen to like.

 

[Dialogos]

Minorities are minorities even if you don't want them to be and they are protected by the constitution whether you like it or not.

And the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion even if you don't want it to and the freedom to abstain from ceremonies that offend one's faith are constitutionally protected whether you like it or not.

This is cherry picking and nothing more.

I assume you think that Christians who don't sacrifice bulls on the day of atonement are "cherry picking" as well, right?

:doh:

If you don't understand the New Testament concept of fulfillment, then just admit it.

But don't erect straw men only to push them down and congratulate yourself on the hollow victory.

What a stupid analogy.

:chuckle:

I don't recall asking what you thought of it.

Does a hardware store have the right to refuse to fill medical prescriptions? Business have a set product line period. Your Jewish deli owner doesn't serve bacon to anyone and that is just fine to everyone. That same deli owner doesn't get to deny serving something on the deli's menu to members of a minority.

Right, and in the same way, a Christian baker should be able to say that same sex wedding cakes aren't on the menu.

See, what you don't want to admit is that the Jewish Deli doesn't serve bacon because doing so is religiously objectionable to the Jewish deli owner.

He or she has the right to prepare the menu in harmony with his or her religious convictions.

The Christian Baker should have the same right to take a same sex wedding cake off the menu as the Jewish deli owner has the right to take bacon off the menu.

No one is calling anyone's belief hatred.

You must be new to the thread. Calling what Christians believe about same sex behavior "hatred" appears to be one of PureX's favorite arguments.

Attempts to legalize discrimination however is hatred and holding a bible while you discriminate doesn't change hate into something else

You are similarly welcome to provide alternative interpretations to the texts that we conservative Christians stand on when we get accused of being "homophobic."

If someone directed this vile statement at you and your family you wouldn't pretend for one second that it was anything but hate

Does being called a "bigot" for standing up for God's word qualify?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Minorities are minorities even if you don't want them to be and they are protected by the constitution whether you like it or not.

So, you are saying that homosexuals should have the same rights as murderers and rapists?

 

[Lighthouse]

The bible says all sin leads to death.

I'm sure yours don't though.

1 John 5:16-17

I'm asking you, is being drunk a sin?
Establish it for me.

The onus is on you, as you claimed it is.

:Firechyld:

There's no second ":" on that one. :firechyld

Ephesians 5:18.

That does not say it is a sin.:nono:

Why would he be surprised at the timing? If they weren't drunk, the timing was the same as every other wedding, which is before they drank too much.

Because it wasn't served first.:dunce::duh:

Let me also present this example...

My band has been hired by several churches to play music at their functions. We are not a Christian band by any means.

Many times a speaker will talk at these events about things I clearly disagree with as far as my beliefs go.

Am I being paid to condone their message, or to entertain the crowd? And am I condoning their message by offering my musical services at the event? Am I spreading the gospel by playing secular songs at this church event, or just doing the job I was commissioned to do?

You certainly aren't protesting the message. Or even making your disagreement known.

Minorities are minorities even if you don't want them to be and they are protected by the constitution whether you like it or not.

If you think they need someone else to protect them then you're the bigot.

 

[Tinark]

:thumb:

Clearly these conditions were nothing like the slavery that was rightly outlawed in recent history.

God outlawed kidnapping and made it punishable by death, meaning "slavery" as we understand it is condemned by the Bible. In the same way, homosexuality is punishable by death.

The question is: Is God a bigot for outlawing homosexuality and slavery?


You failed Logic 101, didn't you? :chuckle:

If all the men go somewhere, does that exclude all the homos?

You know that you are just doing the whole relative morality thing, right? This idea that God was against American slavery is a modern thing - it was the first time such an idea ever arose in the 1,800 year history of Christanity. And Christians will claim, in 30 years time, that God has been fine with the gays all along, as your generation loses influence and begins to die off. And they will quote scripture from the same book and claim they are right. It takes an extreme ignorance of history and one prone to the folly of over confidence in their own intrepretations, which had only happened billions of times throughout human history - there is a graveyard littered with thousands of dead Gods, all of which had believers like you.

 

[Eeset]

Profane Blasphemous cartoon removed.

 

[shagster01]

The onus is on you, as you claimed it is.

It's not on me. I'm repeating what I've been told by Christians on this board. I personally don't believe in sin.

Here are my reasons why I think you all do think it's a sin. . .

1. In another thread when this was brought up several Christians jumped all over me for saying that Jesus made wine for people that had already had to much to drink. They said that would make Jesus a sinner. If being drunk is not a sin, how would it make Jesus a sinner?

2. Many of you Christians keep adamantly battling the possibility that anyone at this wedding was drunk, even though it is the logical conclusion from what the host said. If being drunk is not a sin, why is it not a possibility that they were drunk at this wedding? And why are you fighting that notion so hard? If it's not a sin, it's completely possible that Jesus took part.

 

[Granite]

So, you are saying that homosexuals should have the same rights as murderers and rapists?

You just really, really don't get it. And you never will.

 

[TracerBullet]

So, you are saying that homosexuals should have the same rights as murderers and rapists?

I think that even you should have the same rights as murderers and rapists