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

In Leviticus it says "man should not lie down with another man" is more along lines of what is said in layman's terms and non old tongue.

Homesexual tag was not around then.

Pretty easy for anyone here to Google it and see what it says exactly and in more than 1 passage and in the old tongue.
 
Roll on armageddon,

On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…
Any chance you could point me to where this suggestion appeared before you invented it?
 
In Leviticus it says "man should not lie down with another man" is more along lines of what is said in layman's terms and non old tongue.

Homesexual tag was not around then.

Pretty easy for anyone here to Google it and see what it says exactly and in more than 1 passage and in the old tongue.

Leviticus also says "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat" thereby banning the eating of pork.

So please explain why Ashers sell sausage rolls.
 
Topic is not about pork and I do not care about thread as they can refuse who they like and it should not be national news but the post above by that peep was not really accurate so I only pointed to the source of many peeps misinfo.

Does not matter if you think what is written is good or BS, it is written.

Most Roman Catholics are hypocrites anyway and do not live the way they are suppose to if they really claim to be devote Roman Catholics but pick and choose Bits to suit themselves.
 
Last edited:
The fact that this story is even regarded as 'news' is pathetic....

Do I care if people are gay? No
Do I care that some people don’t morally support certain aspects of gay life? No
Do I think people should be able to have their own views and beliefs? Yes
Do I think a business has the right not to produce something they disagree with? Yes!
Should the gay person have started moaning and reported the bakery to the fascist commission? No...
Should the gay person have shrugged their shoulders and took their business elsewhere? Yes....

The baker was happy to serve the person just like anyone else....there is no discrimination here....actually there is....to the baker for not being entitled to his view...If someone wanted a pro UKIP slogan on a cake and the baker was a militant labour supporter and hated UKIP, if he refused to make the cake, there would be no problem and it wouldnt be news....This story is just about an immature spoilt gay person causing a fuss.

There are so many more important things in the world that need sorting out...this isn’t one of them....this kind of nonsense just annoys everyone and takes society backwards rather than forwards.
Agreed.
 
All this talk of religion is making me feel a bit uneasy. I think it's time to get out my leather shorts, string vest and dance to the Village People whilst drinking bacardi and coke.
 
Most Roman Catholics are hypocrites anyway and do not live the way they are suppose to if they really claim to be devote Roman Catholics but pick and choose nits to suit themselves.

Which nits are they picking and choosing ? Personally when it comes to nits I like to deal will all of them at once using a good and approved delousing powder. You should apply it evenly, leave for 5 minutes and then rinse. Not sure what this has to do with Catholicism though. Bit perplexed as to why you brought it up to be honest. Having said that though, I admit, I have not read the bible from cover to cover, so I guess there is a verse in there somewhere regarding the picking and choosing of nits.
 
The actual quote is...

"nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

So by adding in effeminate and homosexual you've just proved everyone who says the religious just make it up as the go along correct.

The fact the word 'homosexual' didn't exist until 1892 is the giveaway.

The actual passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the King James Version that Kedge has stated in previous debates he follows goes:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


However, the literal translation (according to Young) is:

have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

The NSRV which is one of the more accurate English translations words it thusly:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,

The term being relayed as Homosexual is Sodomite, however the original context of the term Sodomite (as used by Paul) is that it refers to any sexual act that is not standard intercourse, it is not a substitution for homosexuality...this would include any immoral sexual act as defined at the time such as masturbation and oral sex and pederasty...whether it be with a man or woman doesn't matter, except obviously for the last. In fact in Greece there was no such thing as a Homosexual, there was no word for it and no definition for it, there was no reason because Pederasty was the essentially the only common form of male homosexuality that occurred, while adult homosexuality existed, it was rare and the Greeks of the time did not identify with the sexual orientation of the individual. So it is wrong to suggest that Paul was referring to adult homosexual acts as being immoral or forbidden in any of his Epistles, least of all Corinthians.

Another point that Kedge will ignore is that the passage is an instruction to the Church of Corinth who were reverting toward paganism and were seen (at that time) to be subverting the message of Christ to encompass the well known depravity and immorality that Corinth was renowned for and not a judgement on everyone, just the Christians in Corinth, he was (as Leviticus did) referring to what is known as Temple Prostitution, whereby sexual acts form the basis of worship, whether they are with men, women, or (in Leviticus) goats doesn't matter, the judgement is solely on the acts within the Church Worship itself, not the broader World. It is important to reiterate that in Paul's time the main form of male homosexuality was between Older Men and Young Boys (pederasty) as was the norm for such relationships in Greece to which Corinth was a gateway, this is seen as immoral today in our own culture and something that really irks me is that very simple misinterpretation has created an entire doctrine in many Churches. It isn't the Scripture that is at fault, but the people who, with their own bias, have interpreted the terminology to suit the agenda of the times.

I know that Kedge and any of the Catholics reading this will disagree with me, but that is my objective opinion based on my knowledge for what its worth.
 
Last edited:
I was aware of the Greek influences on the early texts, but out of interest Castiel, if it forbade anything that wasn't standard male/female sex, how is it any different to forbidding homosexuality, masturbation, anal and all the other fun variations that exist?

Surely it doesn't matter how the sex acts evolve, if the text basically forbids anything that isn't vanilla? It is hardly the wrong intrepretation, it is just specifying detail.

Not that I agree with it ( it being the banning of homosexuality) but I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
 
I was aware of the Greek influences on the early texts, but out of interest Castiel, if it forbade anything that wasn't standard male/female sex, how is it any different to forbidding homosexuality, masturbation, anal and all the other fun variations that exist?

Surely it doesn't matter how the sex acts evolve, if the text basically forbids anything that isn't vanilla? It is hardly the wrong intrepretation, it is just specifying detail.

Not that I agree with it ( it being the banning of homosexuality) but I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

The point was that is refers to Temple Prostitution so sexual activity that is ritualised as a form of worship (a common form of worship within Paganism). That is the context under which Paul is stating what is forbidden...normal intercourse is seen as form of worship generally as it brings the Gift of Children (go forth and all that) and that Marriage is Sacred and that Man and Wife should not deprive each other, but so is therefore carefully excluded from with that context.. It was not speaking about sexual activity in the broader sense. Remember the Epistle is far more than the simple quotes Kedge is giving in justification of his beliefs and the themes and theology far more complex than simply X is banned and Y is permitted.

I hope that clarifies it somewhat.
 
Last edited:
This story is just about an immature spoilt gay person causing a fuss.
Yes the same as when a pro-gay activist stirs up trouble.


Can't wait for him to reply to that. ;)
Genesis 19:4-5 clearly tells us of homosexual behaviour. Romans 1:25,26,27 - For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
 
Yes the same as when a pro-gay activist stirs up trouble.


Genesis 19:4-5 clearly tells us of homosexual behaviour. Romans 1:25,26,27 - For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I suppose you follow all of the teachings and values in Deuteronomy too?
 
Back
Top Bottom