GoFundMe Shuts Down Camapign for Christian Bakers Asked to Pay $135,000 Fine.....

[Delmar]

Don't waste my time with syllogistic logical fallacies.

Don't care about Jesus' opinon. I get it.

 

[Foxfire]

Don't care about Jesus' opinon. I get it.

Just don't take you seriously if you aren't going to seriously respond to the point of my post.

 

[rexlunae]

Was Jesus a bigot, in your opinon? “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

The question wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to answer anyway. :jawdrop:

No, for this this reason: That wasn't the point he was making. He was speaking against divorce, and he touched on gender briefly on his way to the point. I don't happen to agree with the point he was making either, but it seems to me that you are reading something into it that isn't necessary there.

 

[Delmar]

Just don't take you seriously if you aren't going to seriously respond to the point of my post.

BTW your conjecture is simply a hyperbola diversion.

I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously since you don't take what He said seriously.

 

[Delmar]

The question wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to answer anyway. :jawdrop:

No, for this this reason: That wasn't the point he was making. He was speaking against divorce, and he touched on gender briefly on his way to the point. I don't happen to agree with the point he was making either, but it seems to me that you are reading something into it that isn't necessary there.

So why even bring up gender if it was of no importance? :think:

 

[rexlunae]

So why even bring up gender if it was of no importance? :think:

He brought it up as part of explaining the "one flesh" line of reasoning. It seems to me that the same reasoning applies to gay couples, but as man and man or woman and woman. This is incidental to the main point, based on the case that most of the people would anticipate.

 

[Foxfire]

I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously since you don't take what He said seriously.

I do take Christ's words seriously. They just don't say what you seem to be extrapolating Matt 19:5 to mean.
How do you defend your implied premise that Matt 19:5 somehow constitutes Christ encouraging any bigotry towards gays. You are adding meanings to Christ's words that clearly ARE NOT THERE!
You seem to willfully miss-characterize Christ's words with the same total disregard as you do mine.


And please don't make the comparison that not taking your tactics seriously equates to not taking Christ seriously.

 

[Angeltress]

Frankly, I don't think I'd want my wedding cake baked by someone who had to be forced to do it. For the sake of my wedding guests, I think I would just take my business elsewhere...
I am amazed that anyone would be that stupid in the first place.
Besides, I would have thought the bakery was within it's rights...since when do we force a business to perform a service against it's will?
What kind of an idiot would go to a Christian bakery for a wedding cake for a gay wedding?


Unless....
Perhaps they were trying to start trouble? Got their pictures in the paper, I'll bet...

 

[Lon]

Even if this were so it'd only mean you guys...are trying desperately to act exactly like the same people you oppose.:chuckle:

:doh: You really aren't getting this, Granite.

He has me on ignore, but somebody can explain this to him: It isn't consistent (equitable/fair). Maybe we would want it to be inequitable in our favor, but Granite is assuming that. Let's simply start with 'fair.'

 

[TracerBullet]

I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously since you don't take what He said seriously.

Should we also take the curse of Ham and the unequal yoke seriously?

 

[Delmar]

I do take Christ's words seriously. They just don't say what you seem to be extrapolating Matt 19:5 to mean.

So Jesus was not saying that God making people male and female had anything to do with joining them in marriage? Got it! Why then do you suppose He brought it up the subject of gender in this context?

How do you defend your implied premise that Matt 19:5 somehow constitutes Christ encouraging any bigotry toward gays. You are adding meanings to Christ's words that clearly ARE NOT THERE!

Clearly you are in the camp that says "Jesus was silent on the subject of homosexuality". Do you have any thoughts on the reason Jesus was silent on bigotry toward gays? Why wasn't Jesus calling Moses out?

You seem to willfully miss-characterize Christ's words with the same total disregard as you do mine.

right.

And please don't make the comparison that not taking your tactics seriously equates to not taking Christ seriously.

 

[TracerBullet]

Frankly, I don't think I'd want my wedding cake baked by someone who had to be forced to do it. For the sake of my wedding guests, I think I would just take my business elsewhere...
I am amazed that anyone would be that stupid in the first place.
Besides, I would have thought the bakery was within it's rights...since when do we force a business to perform a service against it's will?
What kind of an idiot would go to a Christian bakery for a wedding cake for a gay wedding?


Unless....
Perhaps they were trying to start trouble? Got their pictures in the paper, I'll bet...

who would want to eat at cafeteria that didn't want to serve them?

 

[TracerBullet]

He has me on ignore, but somebody can explain this to him: It isn't consistent (equitable/fair). Maybe we would want it to be inequitable in our favor, but Granite is assuming that. Let's simply start with 'fair.'

wouldn't that be treating everyone with dignity and respect and not singling some out to refuse service to?

 

[TracerBullet]

Clearly you are in the camp that says "Jesus was silent on the subject of homosexuality". Do you have any thoughts on the reason Jesus was silent on bigotry toward gays?

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Acts 10:28

 

[Delmar]

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Acts 10:28

This in no way justifies sin.

 

[Delmar]

Should we also take the curse of Ham and the unequal yoke seriously?

Please clarify?

 

[Rusha]

Frankly, I don't think I'd want my wedding cake baked by someone who had to be forced to do it. For the sake of my wedding guests, I think I would just take my business elsewhere...
I am amazed that anyone would be that stupid in the first place.
Besides, I would have thought the bakery was within it's rights...since when do we force a business to perform a service against it's will?
What kind of an idiot would go to a Christian bakery for a wedding cake for a gay wedding?


Unless....
Perhaps they were trying to start trouble? Got their pictures in the paper, I'll bet...

Nothing says "this is the most important days of our new lives together" like beginning it with animosity.

 

[Lighthouse]

I do take Christ's words seriously. They just don't say what you seem to be extrapolating Matt 19:5 to mean.
How do you defend your implied premise that Matt 19:5 somehow constitutes Christ encouraging any bigotry towards gays. You are adding meanings to Christ's words that clearly ARE NOT THERE!
You seem to willfully miss-characterize Christ's words with the same total disregard as you do mine.

And please don't make the comparison that not taking your tactics seriously equates to not taking Christ seriously.

Just because Jesus said not to resist an evil person does not mean we are to support sin.

And this verse does not apply to this situation at all. Ann attack from a wicked person is not the same as a wicked person asking you to support and/or celebrate their wickedness.

 

[Lighthouse]

who would want to eat at cafeteria that didn't want to serve them?

Not the same thing. Being black isn't a sin, by the definition of any religion's sacred text. And the civil rights movement was about not being served at all. And the law stating that they were not allowed to receive service among white people.

This is about a service that would support/celebrate sin [homosexuality], not about serving homosexuals in general.

 

[Foxfire]

Just because Jesus said not to resist an evil person does not mean we are to support sin.

Matt 5:39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

And this verse does not apply to this situation at all.

Ummmm yeah.... that was actually my point about Matt 19:5. I didn't introduce it to the conversation and I don't find it relevant in the context in which it was presented to me.