That too.
But her mistake was based on the false assumption that you were a Christian before anything else. Then she assumed you were opposed to business owner rights simply because you don't oppose homosexuality.
GoFundMe Shuts Down Camapign for Christian Bakers Asked to Pay $135,000 Fine.....
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
But her mistake was based on the false assumption that you were a Christian before anything else. Then she assumed you were opposed to business owner rights simply because you don't oppose homosexuality.
Foxfire
Well-known member
The irony here is that in pre civil war times, the Bible was used as justification for slave ownership just as it is being used today to justify discrimination against gays.
Leviticus 25:44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Does anybody here have a couple of Canadian bakers for sale?
Seems they didn't know their bible then or the difference between indentured servitude and slavery by kidnap (forced)
The bible is clear on the forced kind.
Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
Foxfire
Well-known member
The Bible is pretty clear on a LOT of things and not so clear on others. That has never been an impediment for some to use it to promote hatred and contempt for others.
*edit
"The Southern Baptist Convention was founded as a pro-slavery denomination in 1845"
The bible is clear on forced slavery just like its clear on homosexual relations. Got anything relevant yet?
Foxfire
Well-known member
You mean just like wearing clothing made from more than one material? Or Mowing your lawn on Sunday? Adultry? All of which were crimes subject to immediate death by stoning?
Christ left the stone(ing) age behind. So should you.
Actually Christ followed the law to the letter and failed in no point of it.
Perhaps you should learn some better debate tactics, like actually knowing what you are discussing.
Galations 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.…
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.
Foxfire
Well-known member
Correct me if I am mistaken, oh wise and wonderful master of debate, but the way in which he kept the law was not quite in the manner in which it was prescribed.
John 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
*side note. Even though we are not likely to ever agree on this issue, I must still applaud you for at least attempting to articulate your position in a scriptural context.
No, actually He followed the law there, the man was not brought to be stoned also- then when it was said and done, she had no witnesses, and it would have required at least 2, in addition to the man being there.
Lev. 20:10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
They only brought the woman before Christ and were guilty of not fulfilling the Law of Moses by bringing the man as well.
Deut. 22:22-24 “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.”
Got anything better than what appears to be snippets off an atheism 101 slam site? Or would you like to keep showing you don't know that of which you speak?
Last edited:
Foxfire
Well-known member
No, I'll leave that to you.
Oh, what am i wrong about there? Back it up with scripture.
The ones asking Christ to stone her, were with sin, because they didnt follow the law and bring the man. Hence they were in violation of the law also. Then they left, and there were no longer any witnesses to condemn her:
Deuteronomy 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
Foxfire
Well-known member
You're simply making a tinker toy construct. Put this snippet with that snippet to make a statement that otherwise does not exist.
That is NOT what Christ used as reasoning for his action. If it were, I'm quite sure that would be duly reflected in John 8.
If you want to use scripture to put words in Christ's mouth, please use the words that came FROM His mouth.
It certainly is. He followed the law as it was written, to the letter, and remained without sin.
Im not giving you snippets but the actual laws concerning that which you throw out (not knowing the relevant scriptures behind it)
Christ didn't point over and over to what was written (tons of times) because of no reason.
Christ varied on the pharisees oral law, not the actual law God gave that was recorded.
Ill note you have no relevant scripture, however, for your objection.
(as far as what comes from His mouth, He is God, and God is who gave the law)
He answered them the first time, when He wrote their names in the dust of the earth.
Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
They knew they didn't follow the law themselves by bringing the man - that was the trap. They were not without sin, because they directly violated the law by not bringing him too.
He knew they were not concerned with the law, but only concerned with trying to test Christ. If they were concerned with the law given by God, they would have followed it by bringing the man too.
Foxfire
Well-known member
Citation? Speculation?
Tinkertoy
They were not 'without sin' PERIOD! The only one who was "without sin" CHOSE not to cast the first stone.
True.
I gave the passage.
Why would He cast one, to do so, would be to break the law and that is precisely what they wanted Him to do. Thats what you arent getting.
Foxfire
Well-known member
A passage that states that Christ wrote the names of his antagonists in the dust? NOT! Your citation (Jeremiah 17:13) is entirely out of context and there is no scriptural evidence that connects the two. Ergo, tinkertoy argument.
What you aren't getting is that Christ could have demanded that the other party involved be brought forward so they could both then be stoned to death as Mosaic law required.
In so doing, he would still have been within the law. Just not within his own conscience.
Why would He do that, they had already violated the law. Their "witness" would still be invalid. Is that a tinkertoy argument you have? I see no scripture where "He could have done X" examples - i back what i believe with the written word, you know that He so often cites, "It is written" - "For as it is written" - " Is it not written"
Angeltress
New member
Thank you.
I'm not a Black American, however, I know plenty of them, and I know that they do not like to have their long and weary struggle to rise from slavery to equality compared with some foolish notion that "gay is okay".
As far as I know, there are no places like the one in the picture that say "Straight only"...there are no segregated bathrooms labeled "straight" and "gay"...although perhaps there ought to be, I know if I were a guy I might be a bit leery of exposing myself in front of gay men...no drinking fountains labeled "straight only" or "gay", or any such thing. No one is telling gay folks that they have to go to the back of the bus. No one is telling them that they have to send their kids to an inferior school rather than let them mingle with straight kids.
You let me know when you see a bunch of people dressed up in sheets lynching a gay person, and I will fight beside you to stop them.
What this thread is about is whether or not a bakery that was clearly labeled as being Christian had the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a pair of lesbians.
Utterly ridiculous.
In the first place, who in their right mind would want their wedding cake done by someone who had to be forced to do it?
In the second place, there are plenty of bakeries who would love to cater such an affair.
I suspect the only reason they raised so much sand about it was for the publicity.
And, as we see....it worked.
Um no, what this thread is about was how GofundMe is a bunch of hypocrites with their reasoning to remove this fundraiser while having allowed others convicted of crimes to have them.
As of now though, they actually finally revised their policy - but it wasnt policy till well after they removed this one and another (also christian - over the same issue)
I support a businesses right to deny service based on any criteria they want, provided they are consistant and receive no government funds, GoFundMe wasn't consistant - they clearly showed their own discrimination and then were dishonest about it. That is what was being pointed out.