Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

[RDM]

Why is pre marital sex any different to homosexuality? If you believe men can be hardwired to have sex with men then also you should believe men are hardwired to have sex with women? How is that a choice?

Because homosexuality is about sexual attraction rather than the sexual act itself. When to have sex is the choice that everyone can make.

My particular views are not the subject of this thread either, I'm just saying you can't possibly actually read the bible, either NT or OT and believe that God thinks homosexuality is anything other than a sin.

I was just asking if that is what you personally believe and if so, how do you reconcile that belief?

 

[Akagi]

ANSWER ME KOOLPC

...

 

[vincent1989]

Right, so you answer

Do you eat pork? Or anything with pork products?
or duck, or crab, or that which does not swim wholly in the sea, or walk wholly on the land?
Do you keep a dog?
What is your clothing made of?

Well now you're talking mosiac law which was surpassed by the atonement of Christ and is never mentioned again. Homosexuality is specifically mentioned as a sin in the NT after the atonement and therefore does not appear to have been covered, as the mosiac law was, by the atonement.

 

[Pudney]

The Trinity? Yeah it's pretty mainstream.

The bible isn't interpreted as the literal word of God, at least in the case of the Catholic church. The intention of the words is important and not the literal message.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

109 onwards.

Edit: in my general scheme of theory, if the Roman Catholic church is relaxed about certain things then it's highly likely a lot of the Protestant churches will be similar, if not more liberal in respect of the same thing!

 

[RDM]

I think that's been the interpretation for pretty much the whole of Christianity's existence...

I have some passing knowledge of Christianity and I am pretty sure it isn't mainstream Christian belief that everything said in the bible is the word of Jesus Christ.

 

[atpbx]

Your scenario only works if the customer accepts that excuse and does not pursue it within the law. All the customer's lawyers have to do is prove the vendor provided similar services on the same day to prove they are/were lying.

They have to prove material loss for it to be pursued for a flat refusal of service.

"Loss, one cake promotiong gayness"

Not worth anybody's time to be fair.

And I love the gays, they invented Freddie Mercury and many other popular musical artists.

 

[vincent1989]

Because homosexuality is about sexual attraction rather than the sexual act itself. When to have sex is the choice that everyone can make.

Pre marital sex is also about sexual attraction. Adultery is also about sexual attraction. You avoid sin by not acting on it.

I was just asking if that is what you personally believe and if so, how do you reconcile that belief?

It's not relevant to the topic.

 

[TheDeplorable]

And you're ok with that? I would really struggle with a faith that mandates homosexuality as something so foul that god gives you up.

God doesn't give you up. You give God up by following your own sinful desires rather than God's teaching. Stop blaming God for your own sins.

Especially as homosexuality causes no harm and appears to be something that people have no choice in.

It leads them away from living the life that God wants them to live, this causes a great deal of harm to them, as they are choosing to reject God.

Why would God make so many homosexuals if he has such a big problem with them?

He gave us the ability to make choices and he holds us responsible for them. We can always choose to turn to God and then he will forgive us. No-one is irredeemable (despite what Hillary says). But turning to God means rejecting our sinful ways, not remaining in sin. It certainly doesn't mean preaching sin as a new moral code.

By the way, because we have a proclivity to commit sin doesn't mean that we are committed to behaving a certain way. It's certainly not an identity. If being "gay" is your identity, you're not a Christian. Christianity means worshipping God and trying to follow his teachings. It doesn't mean taking immoral practices and putting those above God's teaching. The Bible describes this as "idol worship". You are making false idols and worshipping those instead of God's word. By following identity politics, you are saying that it is more important than God. That is incompatible with Christianity.

 

[RDM]

Pre marital sex is also about sexual attraction. Adultery is also about sexual attraction. You avoid sin by not acting on it.

So it is OK to be gay as long as you don't have sex? I'm glad God made me heterosexual so I don't have to worry about it...

It's not relevant to the topic.

It is sort of relevant, but if you don't want to answer I can't exactly make you.

 

[dalehitchy1]

Don't forget:

No 'pulling out'

Genesis 38:9-10: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."

No tattoos.

Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

No Wearing Gold

1 Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."



As a final note, I know that these cite the Old Testament, which Christianity doesn't necessarily adhere to as law.

To which I say: If you're going to ignore the section of Leviticus that bans about tattoos, pork, shellfish, round haircuts, polyester and football, how can you possibly turn around and quote Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.") as irrefutable law?

 

[vincent1989]

The bible isn't interpreted as the literal word of God, at least in the case of the Catholic church. The intention of the words is important and not the literal message.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

109 onwards.

Edit: in my general scheme of theory, if the Roman Catholic church is relaxed about certain things then it's highly likely a lot of the Protestant churches will be similar, if not more liberal in respect of the same thing!

If you read the bible, and believe the words written in the bible then you believe that they are the word of God. At the council of niccea the Catholic Church had the chance to remove or change anything that they did not consider to be true or accurate. All those versus and chapters stating that Christ is God and is the word and the word was God etc etc were not removed though I suspect a great deal of people who wish to justify a multitude of sin wish that they had been.

 

[RDM]

He gave us the ability to make choices and he holds us responsible for them. We can always choose to turn to God and then he will forgive us. No-one is irredeemable (despite what Hillary says). But turning to God means rejecting our sinful ways, not remaining in sin. It certainly doesn't mean preaching sin as a new moral code.

That didn't answer the question.

 

[vincent1989]

As a final note, I know that nine of these 11 cite the Old Testament, which Christianity doesn't necessarily adhere to as law.

To which I say: If you're going to ignore the section of Leviticus that bans about tattoos, pork, shellfish, round haircuts, polyester and football, how can you possibly turn around and quote Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.") as irrefutable law?

Romans 1:27

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

 

[Pudney]

If you read the bible, and believe the words written in the bible then you believe that they are the word of God. At the council of niccea the Catholic Church had the chance to remove or change anything that they did not consider to be true or accurate. All those versus and chapters stating that Christ is God and is the word and the word was God etc etc were not removed though I suspect a great deal of people who wish to justify a multitude of sin wish that they had been.

That isn't the point. You said that Christianity views the Bible as the the word of God/Jesus and ergo God/Jesus said those words. My point is that isn't true, the Catholic church views the Bible as the message of God, and it takes interpretation to understand the message. It is not literally what God/Jesus said.

That is the Catholic position, and has been since the second Vatican council in 1962. Since at least that date the largest Christian denomination has not taken the standpoint you described.

 

[TheDeplorable]

That didn't answer the question.

Yes it did. You're trying to argue that homosexuals are not responsible for their own sins. That God is responsible instead. This is false. God wants us to make the right moral choices and to follow His teachings. This means not giving into sinful desires but instead resisting them. Sometimes we fail in this endeavour. Even "the best" Christians.

We all have sinful desires. It's our responsibility to try to resist them. The problem homosexuals have -- at least the open, proud ones that are trying to claim that it is a moral lifestyle choice -- is that not only are they sinning, they are unrepentant and are in fact espousing immoral opinions and advocating immoral actions. This is incompatible with being a Christian.

 

[jimjamuk]

I don't why you are wasting your time as sensible argument doesn't exist with religion. It's just a collection of stories 2000 years ago and for some people they haven't progressed since those days.

I'd rather read the stories of Hans Christian Anderson....

 

[vincent1989]

That isn't the point. You said that Christianity views the Bible as the the word of God/Jesus and ergo God/Jesus said those words. My point is that isn't true, the Catholic church views the Bible as the message of God, and it takes interpretation to understand the message. It is not literally what God/Jesus said.

That is the Catholic position, and has been since the second Vatican council in 1962. Since at least that date the largest Christian denomination has not taken the standpoint you described.

So in the last 50 odd years of a 2000+ year history?

 

[dalehitchy1]

Romans 1:27

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

so, i believe you have now been asked 3 times by various people.... but you still havnt answered the question

What do you wear,
Do you eat Pork
Do you eatshelfish
Do you wear gold
Do you have tatoos

If you answer any of these yes... I believe you should sort your own life out before you judge homosexuality.

 

[vincent1989]

so, i believe you have now been asked 3 times by various people.... but you still havnt answered the question

What do you wear,
Do you eat Pork
Do you eatshelfish
Do you wear gold
Do you have tatoos

If you answer any of these yes... I believe you should sort your own life out before you judge homosexuality.

Mosiac law which was fulfilled by the atonement of Jesus. Also 'no' to all of the above not that it's relevant because you don't understand the bible whether it's true or not.

 

[Tosno]

What is your clothing made of? Currently I'm naked, but in general cotton